Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 1 of 97 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14294 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-10050-KMM-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRINITY ROLANDO CABEZAS-MONTANO, ADALBERTO FRICKSON PALACIOS-SOLIS, HECTOR LEONARDO GUAGUA-ALARCON, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 30, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: After a jury trial, defendants Trinity Rolando Cabezas-Montano, Hector Leonardo Guagua-Alarcon, and Adalberto Frickson Palacios-Solis appeal their Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 2 of 97 convictions and sentences under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”). See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508. They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70506(b), and possession with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1). As to their convictions, the defendants, either together or separately, challenge: (1) the constitutionality of the MDLEA; (2) the district court’s determination of MDLEA subject matter jurisdiction; (3) the delay in presentment for a probable cause hearing; (4) the denial of their motion in limine to exclude evidence of post-arrest, pre-Miranda 1 silence; (5) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (6) the denial of their motions for a mistrial based on the government’s alleged Brady 2 violation. As to their sentences, the defendants, either together or separately, challenge: (1) the constitutionality of the denial of safety-valve relief in their MDLEA case; (2) the denial of a minor-role reduction; and (3) the denial of their motions for a downward variance. They also claim the sentencing court committed procedural error and imposed substantively unreasonable sentences. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). 2 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 3 of 97 After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the defendants’ convictions and sentences. We start by recounting the trial evidence about the defendants’ crimes. 3 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Coast Guard’s Detection of the Go-Fast Vessel On the night of October 24, 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Hamilton was patrolling in the eastern Pacific Ocean at 10 degrees latitude and 91 degrees longitude, which was approximately 200 miles off the coast of Central America, namely Guatemala and El Salvador. During the patrol, around 9:05 p.m., a Coast Guard marine patrol aircraft notified the Hamilton cutter that it had detected a go- fast vessel (“GFV”) that was traveling northbound at a high rate of speed and was approximately six nautical miles away from the cutter. 4 The target GFV was 30-to-35 feet long, had two outboard engines, and was carrying ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals