Case: 11-11898 Date Filed: 09/27/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-11898
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:10-cr-80134-WJZ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANLEY WINTFIELD ROLLE,
a.k.a. Junia Rolle,
a.k.a. Stanley Rolle,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 27, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-11898 Date Filed: 09/27/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Stanley Wintfield Rolle pled guilty to attempting to smuggle aliens to the
United States for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).1
Rolle’s vessel was first observed approximately forty-three nautical miles off the
coast of Florida, and he was apprehended approximately twenty-two nautical miles
off the coast.2
By unconditionally pleading guilty, Rolle waived all non-jurisdictional
defects in the proceedings against him. See United States v. Fairchild, 803 F.2d
1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1986) (“A guilty plea, since it admits all the elements of a
formal criminal charge, waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings
against a defendant.”) (quotations omitted). He contends that the district court did
not have jurisdiction because Congress did not intend for § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) to
apply extraterritorially.
1
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324:
Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an
alien has not received prior official authorization to come to . . . the
United States, . . . attempts to bring to the United States in any
manner whatsoever, such alien . . . shall . . . in the case of an offense
done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial
gain, . . . be fined under Title 18 and shall be imprisoned . . . .
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).
2
For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that Rolle’s conduct
occurred outside the territory of the United States. See 33 C.F.R. § 2.22(a)(1), (a)(2) (establishing
a three-mile boundary for some statutes and a twelve-mile boundary for others); see also 33 C.F.R.
§ 2.28(b) (establishing a twenty-four-mile “contiguous zone”).
2
Case: 11-11898 Date Filed: 09/27/2012 Page: 3 of 4
Generally, we review challenges to the district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction de novo. See Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007).
United States district courts “have original jurisdiction . . . of all offenses
against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. “Where the Government
charges a defendant with an offense against the laws of the United States, the
district court has authority to adjudicate whether the defendant violated that law,
unless there is a separate limit on subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v.
Pena, 684 F.3d 1137, 1145 (11th Cir. 2012).
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), the
Supreme Court noted that the extraterritorial reach of a securities statute is not a
question of subject matter jurisdiction. “[T]o ask what conduct [a statute] reaches
is to ask what conduct [the statute] prohibits, which is a merits question.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, by contrast, refers to a tribunal’s power to hear a case.
It presents an issue quite separate from the question whether the allegations the
plaintiff makes entitle him to relief.” Id. at 2877 (quotations and citations
omitted).
Rolle’s argument that § 1324 does not apply extraterritorially addresses only
the “merits question” of whether the statute prohibits his conduct. Under
Morrison, this challenge does not affect the district court’s power to hear Rolle’s
3
Case: 11-11898 Date Filed: 09/27/2012 Page: 4 of 4
case. See id. Because the extraterritorial reach of the statute is not a question of
jurisdiction, Rolle waived any argument on this issue by pleading guilty. See
Fairchild, 803 F.2d at 1124. Accordingly, we affirm and do not address whether
§ 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies extraterritorially. See, e.g., United States v.
Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 197-99 (5th Cir. 2005).3
AFFIRMED.
3
We also reject Rolle’s arguments on the following issues, both of which are non-
jurisdictional and were thus waived by his guilty plea: (1) whether the district erred by not
suppressing evidence due to a lack of probable cause to stop Rolle’s ship, see United States v.
McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973) (suppression is not a jurisdictional issue); and (2) whether
the evidence was sufficient to show a violation of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), see United States v. Ternus,
598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency of the evidence is not a jurisdictional issue).
4