U.S. v. Perez-Oviedo

22 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Correa

    CRIMINAL ACTION 20-cr-00148-CMA (D. Colo. Feb. 28, 2024)

    As the Government points out, and Mr. Correa recognizes, the Third, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have all held that universal condemnation and/or international treaties provide defendants with the necessary forewarning to satisfy Due Process's central concern that prosecution in this country is not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair. (Doc. # 98 at 11-15; Doc. # 101 at 5 19); see, e.g., United States v. Perez-Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Since drug trafficking is condemned universally by law-abiding nations, we reasoned [in Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d at 1056-57] that there was no reason for us to conclude that it is ‘fundamentally unfair' for Congress to provide for the punishment of a person apprehended with narcotics on the high seas.”); United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284, 1293 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that prosecution of drug trafficking on the high seas does not require a nexus to the United States because its universal condemnation by lawabiding nations makes prosecution “not ‘fundamentally unfair'”) (collecting cases)

  2. United States v. Ayala

    917 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    Ayala argues that the District Court of the Virgin Islands lacked jurisdiction to convict her because, as a non-Article III court, it cannot hear cases to which the United States is a party. We exercise plenary review of legal questions. United States v. Perez-Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 401 (3d Cir. 2002)."The District Court of the Virgin Islands derives its jurisdiction from Article IV, § 3 of the United States Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate the territories of the United States."

  3. United States v. Ologeanu

    No. 5:18-CR-81-REW-MAS (E.D. Ky. Apr. 4, 2020)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A robust majority of Circuits have assumed that it does. See, e.g., United States v. Noel, 893 F.3d 1294, 1305 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 157 (2019); United States v. Murillo, 826 F.3d 152, 157 (4th Cir. 2016); United States v. Umeh, 527 F. App'x 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Lawrence, 727 F.3d 386, 396 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1990). However, neither the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment to restrict congressional criminalization of extraterritorial conduct or the conferral of jurisdiction for such prosecutions.

  4. United States v. Stirling

    CASE NO. 11-20792-CR-ALTONAGA (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2012)

    The Eleventh Circuit, however, together with the First, Third, and Fifth Circuits, has consistently "refused to read a jurisdictional nexus requirement into the [MDLEA]." UnitedStates v. Saac, 632 F.3d 1203, 1210 (11th Cir. 2011) (rejecting a constitutional challenge to the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act, explaining that, as with the MDLEA, Congress acted within its constitutional authority under the High Seas Clause in passing a statute that punishes conduct without a nexus to the United States). Accord United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548, 553 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Perez-Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Suerte, 291 F.3d 366, 375 (5th Cir. 2002). Indeed, in United States v. Brant-Epigmelio, the Eleventh Circuit recently rejected an as-applied challenge to the MDLEA under circumstances almost identical to those presented here. 429 F. App'x 860 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

  5. Certiorari Denied

    536 U.S. 969 (2002)   Cited 1 times

    No. 01-10447 PEREZ-OVIEDO v. UNITED STATES. C.A.3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 281 F.3d 400.

  6. United States v. Castillo

    No. 17-1438 (3d Cir. Jul. 18, 2018)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Id.; Birdman v. Office of the Governor, 677 F.3d 167, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) ("[The District Court of the Virgin Islands] remains an Article IV Court."). We have previously held the District Court of the Virgin Islands has jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the criminal laws of the United States, see United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403-04 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Canel, 708 F.2d 894, 896 (3d Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over Castillo's case involving violations of federal criminal law.

  7. United States v. Ali

    718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2013)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a treaty sufficed to provide “[w]hatever [notice] due process requires here”

    But Ali's flawed analogies do not establish actual standards for judicial inquiry; the law of personal jurisdiction is simply inapposite. See United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir.2002). To the extent the nexus requirement serves as a proxy for due process, it addresses the broader concern of ensuring that “a United States court will assert jurisdiction only over a defendant who should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this country.”

  8. United States v. Ali

    No. 12-3056 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 11, 2013)

    But Ali's flawed analogies do not establish actual standards for judicial inquiry; the law of personal jurisdiction is simply inapposite. See United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir. 2002). To the extent the nexus requirement serves as a proxy for due process, it addresses the broader concern of ensuring that "a United States court will assert jurisdiction only over a defendant who should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this country."

  9. U.S. v. Estrada-Obregon

    270 F. App'x 978 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    Estrada-Obregon recognizes, however, that other circuits have held that no nexus is required when the flag nation consents to the enforcement of U.S. law. See, e.g., United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548, 553 (lst Cir. 1999). Second, the district court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte dismiss the case against Estrada-Obregon on the basis that the MDLEA was fundamentally unfair.

  10. U.S. v. Zakharov

    468 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because the alleged unconstitutional delay took place outside of the United States in international waters and there was no suggestion that Zakharov, as neither a U.S. citizen nor U.S. resident, had any substantial connection to this country, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to him and his claim

    The Third Circuit has rejected the proposition that nexus is required without expressly distinguishing between stateless and foreign vessels. See United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel); see also United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA). Unless and until the Supreme Court addresses this issue, we are bound by Ninth Circuit precedent.