United States v. Tony Rafael Henriquez

── United States v. Tony Rafael Henriquez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-11337 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11337 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TONY RAFAEL HENRIQUEZ, a.k.a. Tony Rafael Heriquez, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20385-CMA-2 ____________________ ____________________ No. 24-11465 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USCA11 Case: 24-11337 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 24-11337 Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE ANTONIO ACOSTA-PINEDO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20385-CMA-3 ____________________ ____________________ No. 24-11539 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JULIO JAVIER LIRIANO-MERCADO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20385-CMA-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-11337 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 3 of 9 24-11337 Opinion of the Court 3 Tony Henriquez, Jose Acosta-Pinedo, and Julio Liriano-Mer- cado appeal their convictions under the Maritime Drug Law En- forcement Act (MDLEA) for (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdic- tion of the United States and (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They make the following arguments: (1) the MDLEA is unconstitutional as applied to them because the offense occurred within Colombia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), not on the high seas; (2) the government failed to establish statutory jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B) by showing that the vessel was without nationality; (3) the district court lacked jurisdic- tion because the Netherlands conducted the enforcement action; and (4) the defendants’ due-process rights were violated because (i) the MDLEA is void for vagueness, (ii) they were not read reverse