USA v. Henry Marquez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-12945
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENRY JOSE MARQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00488-CEH-JSS-6
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12945 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-12945
Before J ORDAN, BRANCH , and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Marquez appeals his conviction and sentence for one
count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a
vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and one count
of conspiracy to commit the same. We affirm.
I.
This Court recently decided the appeal filed by several of
Marquez’s codefendants. See United States v. Hurtado, 89 F.4th 881
(11th Cir. 2023). We assume that the parties are familiar with those
underlying facts. Marquez adopted his codefendant’s motion to
dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and motion to
suppress evidence for violation of the Fourth Amendment. After
the magistrate judge recommended denying both motions,
Marquez also adopted his codefendants’ objections to the Report
and Recommendation. The district court accepted the R&R,
overruled the objections, and denied the two motions.
Marquez then entered into a guilty plea without a plea
agreement, pleading to one count of conspiring to distribute and
possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, and to one count of aiding and abetting the same. A
probation officer prepared the presentence investigation report,
describing Marquez’s role as chief engineer aboard the vessel and
calculating the offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. The
USCA11 Case: 21-12945 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

21-12945 Opinion of the Court 3
officer calculated a base level of thirty-eight, applied a two-level
reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18), and reduced three
more levels under § 3E1.1 for Marquez’s timely acceptance of
responsibility, yielding a total offense level of thirty-three. The
guideline imprisonment range for Marquez was 135 to 168 months.
Marquez objected to the calculation, arguing that he should
have received an additional downward adjustment for playing only
a minor role in the offense conduct. At the sentencing hearing,
Marquez raised two more objections. He took issue with the
report’s conclusion that the court had jurisdiction and with its
description his role as “chief engineer” instead of “first mechanic.”
The district court overruled all objections, adopted the PSI
calculation, applied a downward variance from the guideline
range, and sentenced Marquez to ninety-seven months
imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Marquez
appealed.
II.
Marquez raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that
the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law
Enforcement Act. Second, he argues that the district court erred in
denying the motion to suppress. And third, he argues that the
district court committed clear error by denying Marquez’s request
for a minor-role reduction. Our opinion in Hurtado resolves the
first two issues against Marquez. The district court properly
exercised jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement
Act because Cameroon, the vessel’s flag nation, consented to
USCA11 Case: 21-12945 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-12945
United States jurisdiction before trial began. Hurtado, 89 F.4th at
891–95. And the district court properly denied the motion to
suppress because the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not
extend to searches and seizures of non-citizens arrested in
international waters. Id. at 195.
The district court also did not clearly err when it denied
Marquez the requested role reduction. See United States v. Bernal-
Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010). The defendant has the
burden of establishing his minor role in the offense by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Rodriguez De Varon,
175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir. 1999). “Two principles guide the
determination of whether a defendant played a minor role in the
criminal scheme: (1) the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct
for which she has been held accountable at sentencing, and (2) her
role as compared to that of other participants in her relevant
conduct.” United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1249 (11th Cir.
2018) (quotation omitted).
Neither factor weighs in favor of Marquez. Under the first
principle, we consider whether Marquez “played a relatively minor
role in the conduct for which [he] has already been held
accountable—not a minor role in any larger criminal conspiracy.”
De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944. At sentencing, Marquez was not held
accountable for his conduct in some larger conspiracy, and he was
integral to the drug-trafficking scheme for which he was held
accountable. As first mechanic, Marquez was responsible for
preventing the ship from sinking and keeping the engine operating
USCA11 Case: 21-12945 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

21-12945 Opinion of the Court 5
at all times—a task made even more crucial given the ship’s state
of disrepair.
As for the second principle, Marquez’s role in the drug-
trafficking scheme was generally larger than that of his co-
conspirators. Besides the captain—who received an enhancement
for his role—Marquez exercised the greatest amount of
responsibility on the ship. He retained significant decisionmaking
authority as to maintaining and keeping the vessel afloat. And he
was the only individual besides the captain to communicate with
the organizers of the conspiracy. At one point, even the captain
was told that Marquez was the boss and that he would find out the
coordinates of the ultimate destination from Marquez.
Here, the district court’s conclusion about Marquez’s role in
the offense is not clearly erroneous because its “decision is
supported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a
rule of law.” United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th
Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-12945 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --