United States v. Jose Salas-Borrego

── United States v. Jose Salas-Borrego ── Case No.: 23-13741 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 09, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 23-13741 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13741 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE SALAS-BORREGO, a.k.a. Jose Salas Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20473-DPG-2 ____________________ Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Salas-Borrego appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel subject to USCA11 Case: 23-13741 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13741 United States jurisdiction and substantive possession with intent to distribute cocaine on board a vessel subject to United States juris- diction. He argues that (1) the government lacked authority to prosecute him for a felony committed on the high seas under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), as his conduct took place in the Dominican Republic’s exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”), and EEZs are excluded from the high seas under contem- porary international law; and (2) the MDLEA is unconstitutional— both facially and as applied to his circumstances—because it grants the United States jurisdiction based on a definition of “vessel with- out nationality” that includes vessels that are not stateless under international law; and (3) his right to due process was violated be- cause the MDLEA lacks a nexus to the United States. The government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that binding authority forecloses Mr. Salas-Borrego’s claims. We agree with the government. I When a motion to dismiss the indictment is based on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, we review the district court’s denial de novo. See United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 820 (11th Cir. 2024). Likewise, we review “de novo a district court’s interpretation of a statute and whether a statute is constitutional.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The MDLEA makes it a crime to “knowingly or intention- ally . . . possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a con- trolled substance” on board “a [covered] vessel subject to the USCA11 Case: 23-13741 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 3 of 6 23-13741 Opinion of the Court 3 jurisdiction of the United States,” and to conspire to do the same. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), (e)(1), 70506(b). It defines a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as including “a ves- sel without nationality.” § 70502(c)(1)(A). A “vessel without na- tionality” is defined to include “a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge fails, on request of an officer of the United States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel.”