Opinion
21-cr-20581-GAYLES/TORRES
06-15-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HECTOR JULIO JIMENEZ CARABALLO, ALBERTO PEGUERO, ROBERTO PERALTA IBARRA, and VICTOR VAZQUE DIAZ, Defendants.
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 29]. The Motion was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres. [ECF No. 30]. On May 12, 2022, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 36]. Defendants have timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 38].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion be denied and finds that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. § 70502 (“MDLEA”), is constitutional on its face and as applied to Defendants. [ECF No. 36]. In their objections, Defendants argue that Judge Torres erred in making findings, without an evidentiary hearing, as to the amount of the United States' involvement in the law enforcement operation and in failing to include facts about the Dutch officials' involvement in Defendants' arrest and detention. [ECF No. 38]. In addition, Defendants reassert the arguments raised in the Motion that the MDLEA is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Defendants. Id.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and agrees with Judge Torres's well-reasoned recommendation that the Motion be denied. With respect to Defendants' objection that Judge Torres made factual findings without an evidentiary hearing, the Court notes that in the Motion, Defendants repeatedly state that the United States was involved in the law enforcement operation. [ECF No. 29]. Indeed, Defendants allege that the Dutch vessel “had an embarked United States law enforcement team” and had “launched two smaller interception crafts (FRISCs) with both Dutch and United States personnel on board.” Id. at 2. Although Defendants allege that there was only “minimal involvement by the United States Coast Guard” and Judge Torres found that “this is not a case of minimal American involvement; this is a case of active collaboration between two sovereigns, ” [ECF No. 36 at 14], the Court finds this to be a distinction without a difference. Whether the United States' involvement was “minimal” or the investigation was Dutch-led or collaborative, there is no dispute that the United States and Dutch governments were jointly involved in the investigation. Moreover, Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that minimal involvement by the United States in this interdiction would be unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Torres's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 36], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, [ECF No. 29], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.