Opinion
CASE NO. 06-20596-CR-GOLD/GOODMAN
11-27-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EDIL RIGOBERTO GALEAS MATUTE, Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS [ECF No. 241] AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT [ECF
No. 237]; DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT [ECF No. 225]
This CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. On November 14, 2013, I entered an Order [ECF No. 240] adopting Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman's Report and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss Indictment [ECF No. 237], entered August 20, 2013, and denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment [ECF No. 225] ("Motion"). I noted I had granted Defendant an extension of time until October 28, 2013 to file objections to the Report, and Defendant had not, as of November 14, 2013, filed Objections. On November 19, 2013, Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 241] were received by the Clerk of Court. The Objections are dated October 18, 2013. I have considered the Objections and conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Defendant objections, and I adopt the Report and deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment.
First, Defendant's Objections address only the constitutionality of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. ("MDLEA"). Defendant does not object to Magistrate Judge Goodman's conclusions that (1) Defendant's Motion is untimely, (2) Defendant's Motion is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because it is not based on retroactive Supreme Court precedent, and (3) even if cognizable under § 2241, Defendant's Motion was filed in the improper district. In the absence of any Objection on these points, I adopt Judge Goodman's conclusion that the Motion is procedurally barred.
As to the merits of Defendant's Motion, Defendant, in his Objections, largely reiterates the arguments made in his Motion and Reply. Defendant first argues the MDLEA is unconstitutional because it does not contain, on its face, a jurisdictional requirement that a vessel be on the high seas and therefore within the power of the Felonies Clause. Contrary to Defendant's assertion [ECF No. 241, at 8], the MDLEA limits jurisdiction to certain enumerated categories. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c) (entitled "Vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"). Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has upheld Congress' power to restrict conduct on the high seas and has "always upheld extraterritorial convictions under our drug trafficking laws as an exercise of powers under the Felonies Clause." Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245, 1257 (11th Cir. 2012).
Defendant next argues the MDLEA is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the factual question of where the vessel was intercepted must be submitted to the jury. Defendant relies on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2002). In the binding decision of United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with Smith, see Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1111, n. 22, and held whether a vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not an element of an MDLEA substantive offense and therefore need not be determined by a jury.
In sum, upon review of Defendant's Objections, I concur with Magistrate Judge Goodman that Defendant's Motion is procedurally barred and also fails on the merits. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendations [ECF No. 237] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 2. The Motion to Dismiss Indictment [ECF No. 225] is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. This case remains CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 27th day of November, 2013.
____________________________
THE HONORABLE ALAN S. GOLD
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman
Counsel of record
Edil Rigoberto Galeas Matute
76935-004
McRae Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Drawer 30
McRae, GA 31055