USA v. Cristian Castillo-Quinones

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13675
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CRISTIAN ORLANDO CASTILLO-QUINONES,
a.k.a. Pantaloneta
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00053-CEH-AAS-1
USCA11 Case: 23-13675 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13675
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and JORDAN and L AGOA , Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cristian Castillo-Quinones appeals his conviction for con-
spiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilo-
grams or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the ju-
risdiction of the United States. He argues that his prosecution un-
der the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act violated the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and exceeded Congress’s
authority under the Felonies Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause
10 of the U.S. Constitution because his offense bore no nexus to the
United States. The government moves for summary affirmance be-
cause our precedents foreclose Castillo-Quinones’s arguments. We
affirm.
Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke
Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o define
and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offences against the Law of Nations.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10.
It provides three distinct grants of power: “the power to define and
punish piracies”; “the power to define and punish felonies
USCA11 Case: 23-13675 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13675 Opinion of the Court 3
committed on the high seas”; and “the power to define and punish
offenses against the law of nations.” United States v. Bellaizac-Hur-
tado, 700 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir. 2012). These grants are referred
to as the Piracies Clause, the Felonies Clause, and the Offences
Clause, respectively. See id. at 1248–49.
The government is clearly correct as a matter of law. Con-
gress enacted the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act to prohibit
knowing and intentional possession with intent to distribute con-
trolled substances onboard vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1); see United States v. Campbell,
743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). In Campbell, we held that the Act
is a constitutional exercise of congressional authority as applied to
vessels on the high seas under the Felonies Clause. 743 F.3d at 809–
10. And we held that “the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend-
ment does not prohibit the trial and conviction of an alien captured
on the high seas while drug trafficking, because the Act provides
clear notice that all nations prohibit and condemn drug trafficking
aboard stateless vessels on the high seas.” Id. at 812. Castillo-Qui-
nones concedes in his initial brief that his arguments to the contrary
are foreclosed by our precedents.
We GRANT the government’s motion for summary affir-
mance.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13675 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --