United States v. Marcano-Godoy

• Decision Date: 21 May 2020
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 19-150 (FAB)
• Citation: 462 F.Supp.3d 88
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Luis MARCANO-GODOY [6], et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

462 F.Supp.3d 88

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Luis MARCANO-GODOY [6], et al., Defendants.

Criminal No. 19-150 (FAB)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed May 21, 2020

John P. Hutchins, III, United States Attorney's Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Andrew S. McCutcheon, Eric A. Vos, Federal Public Defender's Office, Hato Rey, PR, for Defendant Jesus Salvador Gonzalez-Lunar.

Ernesto Hernandez-Milan, EHM Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Carlos Jose Requena-Lugo.

Wilfredo Rios-Mendez, Rios Law Office, Caguas, PR, for Defendant Eddy Del Jesus Caraballo-Brito.

Lillian N. Miranda-Rodriguez, Miranda & Roque, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Luis Del-Valle-Sanchez.

Juan A. Albino-Gonzalez, Capital Center Bldg., San Juan, PR, for Defendant Luis Alberto Marcano-Godoy.

Ovidio E. Zayas-Perez, Zayas Perez Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Felipe Jose Rodriguez-Gutierrez.

Ramon M. Gonzalez-Santiago, Ramon M. Gonzalez Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Yoniel Enrique Campos-Fernandez.

Johnny Rivera-Gonzalez, San Juan, PR, for Defendant Jesus Del Valle Gonzalez-Rodriguez.

OPINION AND ORDER

BESOSA, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Luis Marcano-Godoy ("Marcano")’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution. (Docket No. 87.) Marcano also moves to stay the proceedings in this action until the First Circuit Court of Appeals issues an en banc opinion in United States v. Aybar-Ulloa, Case No. 15-2377. (Docket No. 88.) Defendants Eddy Caraballo-Brito ("Caraballo"), Luis Del Valle-Sánchez ("Del Valle"), Erivel Guilarte-Carreño ("Guilarte"), and Yoniel Campos-Fernández ("Campos") join the dismissal and stay motions. (Docket Nos. 108, 110, 111, 114, 116, 117, 121 and 122.) Defendants Jesús González-Lunar ("González-Lunar") and Jesús González-Rodríguez ("González-Rodríguez") join only the motion to stay. (Docket Nos. 101, 104, 11 and 120.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion to stay and motion to dismiss are both DENIED . (Docket Nos. 87 and 88.)

I. Background¹

On February 14, 2019, the United States Coast Guard ("USCG") located a "target of interest" ("TOI") approximately 65 nautical miles south of the United States Virgin Islands, a known drug-trafficking area. (Docket No. 1, Ex. 1 at p. 2.)² This vessel contained possible contraband on deck. Id. Subsequently, the occupants on board the TOI "jettison[ed] their load of suspected narcotics, later counted as twelve (12) bales." Id. A USCG cutter recovered the bales and approached the TOI. Id. González-Lunar identified himself as the master and claimed Venezuelan nationality for himself and the vessel, the Jeis Julius I. Id. at p. 3.³ The vessel "was taking on water" despite efforts to seal a leak in the engine room. (Docket No. 1, Ex. 1 at p. 3; Docket No. 99, Ex. 1 at p. 1.) The nine-member crew evacuated the Jeis Julius I, "[getting] to safety onboard the [USCG cutter]." (Docket No. 99, Ex. 1 at p. 1.)

On February 15, 2019, the Government of Venezuela confirmed registration of the Jeis Julius I and authorized the USCG to search its cargo and crew. (Docket No. 99, Ex. 1 at p. 1.) A week later, USCG guardsmen arrived in San Juan, Puerto Rico with the defendants and 12 bales of suspected narcotics. (Docket No. 1, Ex. 1 at p. 4.) The bales tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Id. at p. 4. On May 14, 2019, the Government of Venezuela "confirmed its waiver of jurisdiction over JEUS JULIUS-I, its crew, and any cargo, to the extent necessary for the enforcement of United States law." (Docket No. 99, Ex. 1 at p. 3.)

A grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging the defendants with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance onboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (count one), possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance onboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (count two), and conspiracy to destroy property subject to forfeiture pursuant to section 511(a) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1970 (count three) in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA"), 46 U.S.C. sections 70502(c)(1), 70503(a) and 70506(a). (Docket No. 8.)⁴

II. The Motion to Dismiss

Marcano, Caraballo, Del Valle, Guilarte, and Campos move to dismiss the indictment, arguing that "Congress has exceeded its authority under the Piracies and Felonies Clause by enacting the MDLEA without [requiring] a nexus [to the United States]." (Docket No. 87 at p. 14.)

A. Legal Standard

The defendants seek to invalidate a federal statute, invoking "the gravest and most delicate duty that courts are called to perform." Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 148, 48 S.Ct. 105, 72 L.Ed. 206 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). "Proper respect for a coordinate branch of government requires that [the Court] strike down an Act of Congress only if the lack of constitutional authority to pass the [MDLEA] is clearly demonstrated." Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 537, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) (internal punctuation omitted); Mass. v. United States HHS, 682 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2012) ("Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect.").

The defendants shoulder the burden of proving that the MDLEA is an impermissible exercise of congressional authority. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-21, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993) (holding that "the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to [negate] every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or not the basis has a foundation on the record"). Moreover, the Court presumes that Congress enacted the MDLEA "in accordance with the Constitution." United States v. Dwinells, 508 F.3d 63, 70 (2007) (citation omitted); United States v. Candelario-Santana, 368 F. Supp. 3d 316, 319 (D.P.R. 2019) (Besosa, J.) (citation omitted).

The motion to dismiss sets forth a facial challenge, asserting in an indiscriminate manner that the MDLEA is unconstitutional. (Docket No. 87.) The defendants allege, however, that they present an "as applied" challenge to the statute. Id. at p. 16; compare Bucklew v. Precythe, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1112, 1127, 203 L.Ed.2d 521 (2019) ("A facial challenge is really just a claim that the law or policy at issue is unconstitutional in all its applications.") with Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 271, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001) ("[A]n ‘as applied’ challenge is a claim that the statute, by its own terms, infringes constitutional freedoms in the circumstances of a particular case"). The arguments set forth in the motion to dismiss belie the "as applied" designation.

The defendants contend that the MDLEA is invalid without reference to the nuances of this case or the specific provisions that purportedly contravene the Constitution. Essentially, they seek to dismantle the MDLEA as an ultra vires act of Congress. Consequently, the Court construes the motion to dismiss as a facial challenge to the MDLEA. See, e.g., Nichols v. Harris, 17 F. Supp. 3d 989, 996 n.4 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ("[T]he gravamen of Plaintiff's action is that the laws are unconstitutional because they generally inhibit the purported right to open carry. Accordingly, as the Court has already found, Plaintiff's claims are a facial, not ‘as applied,’ challenge to the relevant state statutes").

To prevail, the defendants "must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the [MDLEA] would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ; see, e.g., Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61, 78 (1st Cir. 2012) ("Because Hightower has not shown that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep, her facial attack fails."). This burden is formidable, posing a "supremely high hurdle." United States v. Sampson, 275 F. Supp. 2d 49, 67 (D. Mass. 2003) ; see Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450-51, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) (holding that "[f]acial challenges are disfavored for several reasons" because they "run contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint").

B. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act

Congress enacted the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act in 1986 to diminish the operations of international drug trafficking organizations. These evasive entities "constantly refine their methods for transporting illegal narcotics from country to country." United States v. Carvajal, 924 F. Supp. 2d 219, 224 (D.D.C. 2013) ; see Lt. CDR Aaron J. Casavant, In Defense of the U.S. Maritime Drug Enforcement Act: A Justification for the Law's Extraterritorial Reach, 8 HARV. NAT'L SEC. J. 191, 199-200 (2017) (noting that Congress endeavored to "counter the traffickers’ ‘mothership’ strategy, target[ing] the larger vessels sailing just outside U.S. territorial seas that were sending smaller, faster vessels to bring contraband ashore."). Consequently, the MDLEA is an expansive statute. It provides that "an individual [on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States] may not knowingly or intentionally:"

(1) manufacture or distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance;

(2) destroy (including jettisoning ...), or attempt or conspire to destroy, property that is subject to forfeiture under section 511(a) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

48 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1)–(2). "[J]urisdictional issues arising under the [MDLEA] are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge," and do not constitute an element of the offense. 46 U.S.C. § 70504 ; see United States v. Gil-Martínez, 980 F. Supp. 2d 165, 168 (D.P.R. 2013) (Besosa, J.).

Vessels subject to criminal liability include, inter alia ,...