-
863 F.2d 1522·
11th Cir.·
1989-01-23
·cited 43×
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to dismiss, suppress, or compel production, nor in the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional findings, or comments made during closing arguments.
-
949 F.3d 567·
11th Cir.·
2020-01-30
·cited 39×
Three defendants convicted of maritime drug trafficking under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess and possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine aboard a stateless vessel in interna
-
915 F.3d 717·
11th Cir.·
2019-02-12
·cited 29×
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no error in the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, denial of a mistrial, or handling of potential attorney conflicts of interest.
-
880 F.2d 1475·
1st Cir.·
1989-07-27
·cited 25×
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the vessel was subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and reversed convictions on one count due to an outdated statute.
-
877 F.2d 895·
11th Cir.·
1989-07-19
·cited 16×
The court held that the precise quantity of marijuana is not an element of the substantive offense under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, and venue is proper in the district where defendants were brought after arrest at sea.
-
923 F.3d 1302·
11th Cir.·
2019-05-13
·cited 15×
The court held that the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) is not a jurisdictional element, and therefore, a failure to sufficiently allege or prove it does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
905 F.2d 245·
9th Cir.·
1990-05-21
·cited 13×
The court held that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act applies extraterritorially to the defendant, and the Fourth Amendment does not extend to the search of a non-resident alien's vessel on the high seas.
-
104 F.4th 815·
11th Cir.·
2024-06-14
·cited 11×
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is part of the "high seas" for purposes of the Felonies Clause, and affirmed the convictions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.
-
838 F.3d 1179·
11th Cir.·
2016-10-04
·cited 8×
Three defendants were convicted of maritime drug trafficking and conspiracy under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) after their fishing vessel was intercepted by the Coast Guard carrying approximately 895 kilograms of cocaine and marijuana. The Eleventh Circuit affirm
-
1 F.4th 976·
11th Cir.·
2021-06-17
·cited 7×
The Eleventh Circuit held that the United States had jurisdiction over the smugglers' stateless vessel under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, sufficient evidence supported their convictions, and the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination.
-
993 F.2d 1052·
3d Cir.·
1993-05-21
·cited 7×
The court held that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act applies to stateless vessels regardless of the destination of the drugs, and a Fourth Amendment claim is waived if not raised in the district court.
-
963 F.3d 1138·
11th Cir.·
2020-06-26
·cited 6×
Defendants adjudicated guilty before the First Step Act's enactment date are ineligible for relief under the amended statutory safety-valve provision, even if sentenced after the enactment date.
-
923 F.2d 917·
1st Cir.·
1991-01-23
·cited 6×
A guilty plea is not knowing and intelligent if the defendant is not informed of all essential elements of the charged offense, particularly when the court and prosecution also appear to misunderstand the jurisdictional requirements.
-
89 F.4th 881·
11th Cir.·
2023-12-20
·cited 4×
Juan Carlos Acosta Hurtado and Asdrubal Quijada Marin, crew members of a Cameroon-flagged vessel, were convicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act after approximately 4,225 kilograms of cocaine were found aboard their vessel in international waters and Cameroon consente
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-06
The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were meritless, as the arguments raised were either foreclosed by statute and precedent or factually unsupported, and therefore, the defendant was not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-26
The court held that a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is untimely if filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction became final, even if the motion raises jurisdictional challenges.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-20
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted or failed on the merits, and his guilty plea waived most of his arguments.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-20
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are meritless and procedurally barred, and his motion to amend is untimely.
-
11th Cir.·
2024-06-14
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is part of the "high seas" for purposes of the Felonies Clause, and affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-04-04
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence was untimely and that his claims lacked merit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-12-14
The court held that the defendant's claims regarding the indictment's sufficiency, the district court's jurisdiction, and his sentence are meritless and not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-19
The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to jurisdiction lacked merit and were procedurally barred.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-09-19
The court held that the defendant's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied because his claims were procedurally defaulted and meritless, and he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-28
A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional challenges to a conviction, including claims regarding the constitutionality of the statute or pre-plea government conduct.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-05
The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and jurisdictional challenges were procedurally barred or lacked merit, and therefore denied his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-09-23
The court held that the petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was untimely and failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-29
The court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge subject matter jurisdiction because the evidence established the vessel was stateless and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-09
The court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to venue or subject matter jurisdiction, and the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-20
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Franco's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court held that Franco's motion was untimely and without merit, as his claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations and he failed to establ
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-12-02
The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit, as his guilty plea waived most challenges and his counsel's actions were reasonable and not prejudicial.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-09
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was untimely and without merit, as his claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of jurisdiction failed under the applicable legal standards.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-05
The court held that the defendant's claims for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were without merit, as his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and his counsel was not ineffective.
-
11th Cir.·
2020-06-26
Defendants adjudicated guilty before the First Step Act's enactment date are ineligible for relief under the amended statutory safety-valve provision, as the Act applies only to convictions entered on or after its enactment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-10
The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to file meritless motions to suppress, object to venue, or dismiss the indictment, and that the petitioner's guilty plea waived most claims.
-
192 F. Supp. 2d 1334·
M.D. Fla.·
2002-01-10
The court held that the indictment was sufficient, venue was proper, the vessel was subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the relevant statutes were constitutional, and the determination of jurisdiction was a question of law for the court, not the jury.