United States v. Winston Pinnock

── United States v. Winston Pinnock ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10008 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10008 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WINSTON PINNOCK, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00103-WFJ-SPF-1 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Winston Pinnock appeals his convictions and 120-month to- tal sentence for conspiracy to possess, with the intent to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), USCA11 Case: 25-10008 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10008 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a) & (b), and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a) & 70506(a). Both of these convictions were violations of the Maritime Drug Law En- forcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. § 70501, et seq. On appeal, Pinnock makes two arguments, but he concedes the first is fore- closed by our precedent. After careful review, we affirm. 1 I. Pinnock first argues that his convictions are unconstitutional for three reasons: (1) the MDLEA exceeds Congress’s Article I au- thority because his conduct had no connection to the United States; (2) his conduct lacked a nexus to the United States, so prosecuting him violates due process; and (3) Congress lacks Article I authority over conduct which occurs within the exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) of another country. He correctly concedes that these ar- guments have been rejected by this Court in prior published opin- ions.2 “[A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels 1 We write only for the parties, so we omit a lengthy recitation of the facts. 2 Indeed, we have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to the MDLEA. See United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374, 1376–78 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 269 (2025); United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 820 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2706 (2025); United States v. Cabezas- Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 587 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Castillo, 899 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2018); United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 809–10 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Wilchombe, 838 F.3d 1179, 1186 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (11th Cir. 2006). USCA11 Case: 25-10008 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-10008 Opinion of the Court 3 unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abro- gation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 892 (11th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted), cert. denied, No. 25-6281, 2026 WL