Two cases have been consolidated for the purposes of this appeal; the facts in each are substantially identical. In United States v. Marino-Garcia, No. 81-5551, the Coast Guard cutter DEPENDABLE approached the vessel FOUR ROSES on the high seas 65 miles off the west coast of Cuba and 300 miles from Florida. Coast Guard officials boarded the vessel and discovered approximately 57,000 pounds of marijuana. No evidence reflected that the contraband was intended for the United States. Moreover, the FOUR ROSES was not an American ship but was instead a vessel without nationality. Finally, the nine crewmen were all foreign nationals.
Coast Guard officials seized the vessel and arrested the crewmen. The crewmen were indicted for conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 955a. Defendants sought dismissal of the indictment. They argued that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over stateless vessels absent proof of a nexus between the vessel and the United States. They further contended that the Government failed to allege sufficient facts necessary to establish the requisite nexus. The district court denied the motion. After a jury trial, defendants were convicted on both counts and sentenced to varying terms of incarceration. Defendants appeal.
In the companion case, United States v. Cassalins-Guzman, No. 82-5284, the Coast Guard cutter LIPAN encountered the vessel LADY MARK on the high seas in the vicinity of Cuba. The LIPAN forced the vessel to heave to and attempted to ascertain the LADY MARK's nationality. Crewmen on board informed personnel on the LIPAN that the vessel was registered in Colombia and that the next port of call was El Salvador. Coast Guard officials nonetheless boarded the LADY MARK to verify the nationality. The boarding party discovered approximately 20,000 pounds of marijuana on the vessel. The party also located four different national flags and $1,000 in United States currency. The boarding party did not, however, discover any evidence establishing that the crewmen of the LADY MARK intended to bring the illicit substance into the United States.
The LADY MARK defendants were all charged with conspiring to violate and violation of Section 955a. Defendants successfully moved to have the indictment dismissed. The district court assumed for purposes of the motion that the LADY MARK was a stateless vessel. The district court concluded that the Government's failure to establish a nexus between the United States and the stateless vessel deprived the court of jurisdiction. The Government appeals the dismissal.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
The defendants in the Marino-Garcia portion of the joined cases were appealing the US Government exercise of jurisdiction over their unflagged vessel on the high seas. The Government in the Cassalins-Guzman portion of the joined cases was appealing the denial of jurisdiction over a stateless vessel (that was carrying 4 flags) on the high seas. The court held that the US Government was authorised by US and International law to exercise jurisdiction over stateless vessels on the high seas.
The Marino-Garcia appeal was denied, and the Cassalins-Guzman appeal was allowed with the case remanded for retrial.
Omar Chaverra, Hernan Ardila-Boyona, William G. Suarez, Valentin Torres-Camargo, Ernesto Segundo Torres-Riasco, Evelio Pauth-Arzuza, Fabian Perdoma-Cardona, and Ramon Elias Reales-Morales were all a part of this appeal with the same charges and outcome.
Casimiro Diaz-Castillo, Carlos Espana, Alfredo Pupo-Bolano, David Rene Olaya-Betancur, Nemecia Hidalgo-Castillo, Jaime Pimienta-Perez, and Luis Estanislao Perea-Ulloa were all subject to the same appeal from the government with the same charges and outcome.
Conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 955a.
The court held that the US had jurisdiction to enforce criminal law on stateless vessels.
Conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 955a.
The government appealed the district court's acquittal on the basis of a lack of jurisdictional nexus between the stateless vessel and the US. The appeal court agreed with the government that no nexus of jurisdiction was necessary for the US to apply its law to stateless vessels, remanding the case to the district court for rehearing.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
This case is significant as it confirms (at least for the purpose of US law) that a vessel will be deemed stateless for carrying multiple flags.