USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 1 of 7

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12779 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

SANTO ROSARIO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20572-FAM-3 ____________________ ____________________ No. 23-12828 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 2 of 7

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12779

versus

FRANCISCO RIJO-RIJO, a.k.a. David Ernand, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20572-FAM-1 ____________________ ____________________ No. 23-12842 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

PLACIDO RIVERA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20572-FAM-2 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 3 of 7

23-12779 Opinion of the Court 3

In these consolidated appeals, three drug smugglers appeal their convictions following their guilty pleas to conspiring to pos- sess and possessing with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine upon the high seas while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a), 70506(b); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 2. They argue that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act is unconstitutional and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Act. Our precedents foreclose their constitutional challenges, and the district court had jurisdiction under the Act. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2022, the Coast Guard stopped a vessel bearing no indicia of nationality about 130 nautical miles off the coast of Aruba in its exclusive economic zone. The smugglers, Santo Rosario-Rivera, Francisco Rijo-Rijo, and Placido Rivera-Rodriguez, were aboard the vessel. All three men made verbal claims of Haitian nationality. None of them identified themselves as the master of the vessel, and no claim of nationality was made for the vessel, which rendered it stateless and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B). Authorities searched the vessel and dis- covered 18 bales of cocaine. The smugglers were arrested, brought to the United States, and indicted for conspiring to possess, and for possessing with intent to distribute, five or more kilograms of co- caine upon the high seas while on board a vessel subject to the ju- risdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a), 70506(b); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 2. USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 4 of 7

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12779

The smugglers moved to dismiss the indictment. They ar- gued that the Act was unconstitutional because they were arrested in Aruba’s exclusive economic zone, which was not part of the “high seas” under customary international law. They maintain that because this zone was not part of the “high seas,” their conduct fell outside of Congress’s authority under the Felonies Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 10, and the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute them. They also argued that Congress lacked authority to regulate drug trafficking offenses that lacked any “nexus” to the United States, and that the Due Process Clause, id. amend. V, prohibited the district court from prosecuting them for such offenses. A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the mo- tion. Lieutenant Cameron Box testified that the Coast Guard stopped an unflagged vessel 130 miles off Aruba’s coast and boarded the vessel after receiving authority to conduct a right of visit boarding. He testified that, when conducting a right of visit boarding, Coast Guard personnel ask everyone on board the vessel whether anyone claims to be its master or makes a claim of nation- ality for it. He did not testify whether Coast Guard personnel asked the smugglers if anyone claimed to be the master of the vessel or otherwise made a claim of nationality for the vessel. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be de- nied, the district court adopted that recommendation, and the smugglers pleaded guilty as charged. Each smuggler agreed that the vessel did not bear any indicia of nationality and that he had USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 5 of 7

23-12779 Opinion of the Court 5

not claimed to be the master of the vessel or made a claim of na- tionality for the vessel. The factual proffer did not state whether Coast Guard personnel had asked if anyone wanted to make a claim of nationality for the vessel. The district court accepted their guilty pleas and imposed concurrent sentences of 57 months of im- prisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Three standards govern our review. First, we review sub- ject-matter jurisdiction, including the statutory requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforce- ment Act, de novo. United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 588 & n.13 (11th Cir. 2020). Second, we review factual findings with respect to that jurisdictional inquiry for clear error. Id. at 588 n.13. Third, we review the interpretation of a statute, including whether it is constitutional, de novo. Id. at 586 n.10. III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion into two parts. First, we explain that our precedent forecloses the smugglers’ constitutional chal- lenges to the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. Second, we explain that the record establishes a statutory basis for the district court’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Act. A. Our Precedent Forecloses the Smugglers’ Constitutional Challenges The smugglers argue that the Act is unconstitutional be- cause Aruba’s exclusive economic zone is not part of the “high seas,” and enforcement of the Act in that zone exceeds Congress’s USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 6 of 7

6 Opinion of the Court 23-12779

power under the Felonies Clause. They also argue that their pros- ecution violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and exceeded Congress’s authority under the Felonies Clause be- cause their offenses bore no nexus to the United States. These ar- guments fail. As the smugglers concede, our precedents foreclose these arguments. First, we have held that the Act “is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause as applied to drug traf- ficking crimes without a ‘nexus’ to the United States.” Cabezas-Mon- tano, 949 F.3d at 587 (citing United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 809-10 (11th Cir. 2014)). Second, we have held that a nation’s ex- clusive economic zone “is part of the ‘high seas’ for purposes of the Felonies Clause[.]” United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2706 (2025). The smugglers have not established that the Act is unconstitutional. B. The District Court had Subject-Matter Jurisdiction under the Act The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act makes it a crime to possess, or conspire to possess, a controlled subject with intent to distribute that substance while aboard a vessel subject to the ju- risdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70503(e)(1), 70506(b). The Act extends jurisdiction to a “vessel without nation- ality,” or “a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge fails, on request of an officer of the United States authorized to en- force applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel[.]” Id. § 70502(c)(1)(A), USCA11 Case: 23-12779 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025 Page: 7 of 7

23-12779 Opinion of the Court 7

70502(d)(1)(B). The government bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction under the Act. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d at 588. According to the smugglers, the government failed to satisfy its burden of establishing jurisdiction under the Act. They explain that, although the record establishes that they did not make a claim of nationality for the vessel, it does not establish that Coast Guard personnel asked them to do so. We disagree. The district court did not clearly err in implicitly finding that the smugglers were asked to make a claim of nationality or registry for the vessel. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d at 588 n.13. It credited Lieutenant Box’s testimony about the Coast Guard’s standard pro- cedure for right of visit boardings, and it accepted the smugglers’ stipulation that they made no claim of nationality. The record sup- ports the district court’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction un- der the Act. 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B). IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the smugglers’ convictions.