Maritime law

• Pages: 87-87

87

international law update Volume 17, October–December 2011

© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

MARITIME LAW

F C,  

      

  ,   

     

M D L E A

On February 23, 2007, the United States Coast

Guard boarded a “go-fast vessel” in the Caribbean

that did not display any registry numbers, hailing

port, or national ag, in violation of international

law. Francisco Nueci-Pena identied himself as

master of the ship and, though it was disputed,

either claimed Columbia or Venezuela as its

country of registry. Both countries were contacted

separately, and neither could conrm nor deny the

vessel’s registry. In accordance with the Maritime

Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), the vessel

qualied as a “vessel without nationality” and was

then subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

e Coast Guard then recovered several burlap

sacks that contained 1,170 pounds of cocaine. e

entire crew, including Defendant Javier Mitchell-

Hunter, was taken to Puerto Rico and a criminal

complaint was issued against each member of the crew.

Nueci and Mitchell moved for dismissal of

the criminal complaint, claiming that the vessel

was registered in Venezuela and the Coast Guard

personnel did not contact the country to verify

the registry, thereby invalidating the jurisdiction

of the United States. However, the district court

agreed with the government’s argument that both

countries were contacted on the same day, though

by dierent ocers, and neither country could

conrm nor deny the vessel’s registry. erefore,

the vessel was properly considered a vessel without

nationality, subjecting it to the jurisdiction of the

United States. e Defendants appealed.

e U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

arms the district court’s ruling. Reviewing the

jurisdictional issue de novo, the Court begins by

analyzing the purpose of the MDLEA. “Finding that

drug tracking at sea was a ‘serious international

problem . . . present[ing] a specic threat to the

security and societal well-being of the United States,’

46 U.S.C. § 70501, Congress, via the MDLEA, made

it unlawful to ‘knowingly or intentionally manufacture

or distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture

or distribute, a controlled substance on board . . . a

vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’

id. § 70503(a), which applies ‘even though the act is

committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the

United States,’ id. § 70503(b).” [¶ 11]

ere are several types of vessels that fall within

the jurisdiction of the United States, including vessels

without jurisdiction. “One type of vessel without

nationality is ‘a vessel aboard which the master or

individual in charge makes a claim of registry and

for which the claimed nation of registry does not

armatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel

is of its nationality.’ Id. § 70502(d)(1)(C).” [¶ 12] e

Court assumes that the responses from Venezuela and

Columbia were adequately proven, thereby qualifying

the go-fast vessel as a vessel without nationality and

subject to the United States’ jurisdiction.

“At the time of the events relevant to this case,

the MDLEA stated that only a denial of the registry

claim, and not an equivocal response, could be proved

conclusively by State Department certication. Id. §

70502(d)(2) (2006)” [¶ 13] e Court states that

even though the certications obtained regarding

the vessel’s registration “did not rise to the level

of conclusive proof in this case,” it found that the

district court was correct in its nding that the

certications were “still relevant and admissible

prima facie evidence of statelessness.” [¶ 13]

Lastly, the Court considers the remainder

of evidence submitted by the government that

pertained to the vessel’s statelessness, such as no

displayed registry numbers, hailing port, or national

ag. Any of these displays would have indicated

nationality under international law.

e Court nds that, “[c]onsidering the totality

of the evidence presented to the district court, and

as the burden of proof is merely a preponderance,

id., there was no error in concluding that the

go-fast was a vessel without nationality under §

70502(d)(1)(C).” [¶13] erefore, the district

court was correct in nding that the United States

had jurisdiction over the go-fast vessel.

: United States v. Mitchell-Hunter, No. 10-

2203 (1st Cir. Dec. 12, 2011).