USCA11 Case: 25-10600 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10600 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

RAFAEL ESPINAL-ALMEIDA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cr-20206-JB-1 ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Rafael Espinal-Almeida pleaded guilty to conspir- ing to possess with intent to distribute cocaine on a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. On appeal, he raises a USCA11 Case: 25-10600 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10600

constitutional challenge to his conviction. The government has moved for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s mo- tion. I. In April 2024, the United States Coast Guard spotted a boat that displayed no indicia of nationality approximately 60 nautical miles off the coast of the Dominican Republic. A Coast Guard team stopped and boarded the boat. Aboard the boat, they found two men, Espinal-Almeida and Manuel Alvarez. Although neither man claimed to be the master or person in charge, both claimed Domin- ican nationality for the boat. The United States contacted the gov- ernment of the Dominican Republic, which denied nationality. Based on this response, the Coast Guard treated the boat as one without nationality and concluded that it was subject to the juris- diction of the United States. The Coast Guard recovered 401 kilo- grams of cocaine from the boat. A grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an indictment charging Espinal-Almeida with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (Count One) and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the USCA11 Case: 25-10600 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 3 of 5

25-10600 Opinion of the Court 3

jurisdiction of the United States (Count Two). 1 Espinal-Almeida moved to dismiss the indictment, challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which he had been indicted—the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501–08. After the district court denied the motion, Espinal-Almeida pleaded guilty to Count One in exchange for the government dismissing Count Two. The district court sentenced him to 180 months’ im- prisonment. This is Espinal-Almeida’s appeal. II. Summary disposition is appropriate when “the result is clear as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome.” Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1076 n.6 (11th Cir. 2019). We review de novo a district court’s determination on its sub- ject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374, 1378 (11th Cir. 2025). “Likewise, we review de novo the con- stitutionality of a criminal statute.” Id. “Although a guilty plea gen- erally waives a defendant’s right to appeal his conviction, it does not waive the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute underlying the conviction.” Id.

1 The indictment charged Alvarez with the same crimes. He pleaded guilty to

the conspiracy charge and received a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. Alvarez did not appeal his conviction or sentence. USCA11 Case: 25-10600 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10600

III. The MDLEA makes it a crime to “knowingly or intention- ally . . . possess with intent to . . . distribute, a controlled sub- stance” on board “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and to conspire to do the same. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), (e)(1); 70506(b). The MDLEA defines “vessel subject to the jurisdic- tion of the United States” to include “a vessel without nationality.” Id. § 70502(c)(1)(A). A “vessel without nationality,” in turn, is de- fined to include “a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry that is denied by the nation whose registry is claimed.” Id. § 70502(d)(1)(A). The MDLEA’s prohibi- tions apply even when the criminal conduct is “committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. § 70503(b). On appeal, Espinal-Almeida raises a challenge to his convic- tion under the Felonies Clause of the Constitution, which author- izes Congress to punish certain offenses committed on the high seas. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10 (granting Congress the author- ity “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”). He argues that the Felonies Clause did not authorize his prosecution because the waters where he was arrested are part of the exclusive economic zone of the Dominican Republic.2

2 A nation’s exclusive economic zone sits beyond its territorial waters but

within 200 nautical miles of its coastal baseline. United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 821 (11th Cir. 2024). We have described the concept of an ex- clusive economic zone as of “relatively modern vintage.” Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th at 1382; see also Alfonso, 104 F.4th at 823 (explaining that at the time USCA11 Case: 25-10600 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 5 of 5

25-10600 Opinion of the Court 5

Relying on customary international law, he asserts that waters that are part of another nation’s exclusive economic zone are not part of the high seas, and thus the United States lacks jurisdiction to en- force the MDLEA over a vessel in another nation’s exclusive eco- nomic zone. This challenge is foreclosed by precedent. We have held that other countries’ exclusive economic zones are “part of the ‘high seas’ for purposes of the Felonies Clause,” and thus “enforcement of the MDLEA in [exclusive economic zones] is proper.” United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 823, 827 (11th Cir. 2024). In reaching this conclusion, we rejected the argument that “Congress’s author- ity under the Felonies Clause to define and punish felonies com- mitted on the ‘high seas’ is limited by customary international law.” Id. at 825. Here, the government is clearly correct, as a matter of law, that Espinal-Almeida’s challenge is foreclosed by precedent. Our decision in Alfonso binds us because it has not been overturned or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance.

of the adoption of the Constitution, the concept of an exclusive economic zone “did not exist”).