The Eleventh Circuit Just Confirmed You Can Be Prosecuted in Florida for a Drug Conspiracy You Never Left Colombia to Join

A Colombian national who never boarded a boat, never entered American waters, and never set foot in this country until he was extradited is now serving a federal sentence out of the Middle District of Florida. On August 3, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction and held that Congress may criminalize a land-based agreement, formed on foreign soil, to move cocaine across international waters. If you have been told a federal maritime drug case requires some connection to this country, that advice is now wrong here.

Coast Guard interdictions in the Eastern Pacific and the Caribbean come ashore in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit has now confirmed that the people who never went to sea can be charged alongside the crews.

Key Takeaways

• The Eleventh Circuit held on August 3, 2026 that Congress may criminalize land-based foreign conspiracies to traffic drugs on the high seas.
• Charges arise under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70503 and 46 U.S.C. 70506(b), which reach vessels without nationality anywhere in international waters.
• No nexus to the United States is required, and penalties track 21 U.S.C. 960, meaning ten years to life for five or more kilograms of cocaine.
• The Middle and Southern Districts of Florida receive most Coast Guard interdiction prosecutions in the country.
• Jurisdictional motions rarely win in this circuit, so the defense value sits in role, safety valve, and cooperation decisions made early.

What Actually Happened

In 2015 and 2016, the Coast Guard interdicted two stateless self-propelled semi-submersible vessels carrying thousands of kilograms of cocaine in international waters. Both crews had launched from Colombia and were headed to Mexico. Neither vessel was bound for the United States or in American waters when stopped.

Investigators traced the ventures to a Colombian citizen and resident who helped plan and prepare them. He paid at least one crewmember on each vessel and was present at one launch site, assisting the dispatch into international waters. That was the extent of his conduct. He was indicted in 2017 in the Middle District of Florida, extradited, and eventually pleaded guilty.

Before pleading, he moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. His argument was simple: his conduct occurred in Colombia, he was not captured in international waters, and nothing he did touched this country. The district court denied the motion. The Eleventh Circuit, in a published opinion by Chief Judge William Pryor, affirmed.

Banning agreements to smuggle in international waters is reasonably adapted to Congress's end of banning trafficking on the high seas, because land-based conspirators direct, finance, and profit from these ventures. That single sentence is what expands the government's reach, and it is why a launch coordinator in Buenaventura now sits in the same charging universe as the mariners the Coast Guard pulled off the water.

He paid at least one crewmember on each vessel and was present at one launch site. That was the extent of his conduct, and under this decision it is enough to sustain a federal conspiracy conviction in Florida.

What the Government Is Actually Building

Florida is where this entire category of prosecution comes ashore. Cutters operating in the Eastern Pacific and the Caribbean bring interdicted crews to Florida ports, and the cases land in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida more often than anywhere else. Crews get charged first. Then, over the next two to five years, the government works upward.

That upward work is what this decision protects. Interdiction gives the government a vessel, a crew, and a load. It does not give the government the organization. Prosecutors build the rest through crew cooperation, phone and financial records, and foreign partners, then charge the organizers under 46 U.S.C. 70506(b) years later. The organizer often learns of the American case when foreign police arrive at his home.

The consequence is a long tail. A 2015 launch produced a 2017 indictment, an extradition, a plea, and a 2026 appellate opinion. Anyone who assumes an old venture has gone quiet is misreading these cases.

Interdiction gives the government a vessel, a crew, and a load. It does not give the government the organization. That is built over the following two to five years, through cooperation, records, and foreign partners.

Exposure and Charges

The Act sits at 46 U.S.C. 70501 through 70508. Section 70503(a)(1) bars possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance on board a covered vessel, and 46 U.S.C. 70502(c)(1)(A) defines that to include a vessel without nationality, which is what a stateless go-fast or semi-submersible is. Section 70506(b) separately criminalizes conspiring to violate Section 70503. That is the provision reaching people who never went to sea.

The penalties are not maritime-specific. Section 70506(a) imports the scheme of 21 U.S.C. 960, so five or more kilograms of cocaine means a ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum of life. Loads measured in tons are routine, which puts the base offense level under Section 2D1.1 near the top of the drug quantity table before any adjustment.

The government need not prove the drugs were headed to the United States, or that the defendant knew. Here they were headed to Mexico, and it made no difference. What the government does need is proof of the agreement and of the defendant's participation, which is where a federal drug conspiracy defense attorney should now concentrate.

The Mistakes That Decide These Cases Early

Spending the defense budget on a jurisdictional motion. There was at least an argument that Davila-Mendoza limited Congress's reach over conduct not committed on the high seas. That gap is now closed. Preserving the issue costs little. Building a defense around it costs the client the case.

Talking to agents through the extradition process. Foreign detention is long, isolating, and produces statements. Agents and their foreign counterparts interview extradition subjects, and those interviews arrive in the American case as admissions. A federal investigation defense attorney should be engaged before extradition, not after arraignment.

Assuming a crew member and an organizer face the same case. They do not. Mariners hired for a single voyage often qualify for mitigating role and for the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f), which can move a sentence below the ten-year mandatory minimum. Organizers who paid crews and dispatched launches face leadership enhancements instead. That classification is the highest-value work in these cases.

Waiting for the indictment to unseal. Indictments here sit sealed for years. A pre-indictment defense lawyer who learns of exposure through a foreign proceeding, a seized phone, or a cooperating crewmember still has room to approach the government. Once extradition begins, that leverage is gone.

"Preserving the issue costs little. Building a defense around it costs the client the case."— Aaron M. Cohen, AMC Defense Law

What Effective Defense Actually Looks Like

Reconstruct the role, not the jurisdiction. The government's theory flattens a hierarchy into one conspiracy. These ventures involve financiers, brokers, coordinators, launch crews, and mariners, and the differences are enormous at sentencing. Reconstructing who did what, backed by records rather than assertion, is what produces a defensible role adjustment.

Decide on cooperation early. In a multi-vessel venture the government will secure cooperation from several people, and the first accurate account is worth far more than the fifth. A proffer agreement defense lawyer should evaluate a Section 5K1.1 posture at the front of the case, not after the plea.

The same is true of a 18 U.S.C. 3553 variance theory built on economic coercion and the gap between what a Colombian fisherman was paid and the quantity attributed to him. Counsel who begin a federal sentencing memorandum after the plea are working against the clock.

Attack quantity attribution through PSR objections. Two vessels does not mean both loads are attributable to every conspirator. Foreseeability and scope of the agreement remain live questions even where jurisdiction is not.

Why the Timing Matters

This decision removes the argument most often used to delay hard decisions. Families hold onto the idea that an American court has no business prosecuting conduct that happened in Colombia. That belief is now foreclosed here, and it was never a strong bet.

What remains fluid is everything the government has discretion over. Which conduct goes in the indictment. Which quantity gets charged. Whether an organizer is treated as one. Whether cooperation is available and on what terms. Prosecutors in Tampa and in the Southern District of Florida make those calls over months, with or without input from defense counsel.

Common Questions

Facing a Federal Maritime or International Drug Conspiracy Case?

AMC Defense Law represents individuals in federal drug conspiracy, importation, and maritime trafficking prosecutions in the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida and nationwide, including matters that begin with a foreign detention or an extradition request. If a sealed indictment has surfaced, if a family member has been detained abroad on a United States warrant, or if agents have asked questions about a vessel or a shipment, the period before arraignment is where the work matters most.

The jurisdictional fight is over in this circuit. Role, quantity attribution, safety valve eligibility, and the timing of any cooperation decision are where a maritime conspiracy case is still won or lost.

Consultations are confidential. If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are under federal investigation in a maritime or international drug conspiracy matter, call Aaron M. Cohen, 24 hours a day, to get help. Call 561.542.5494 or contact the firm to discuss your situation privately.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with AMC Defense Law or with any of its attorneys. Every case turns on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other matter. If you are under investigation or have been charged with a criminal offense, consult a licensed attorney about your specific circumstances.

About the author: Aaron M. Cohen, Esq. is the founding attorney of AMC Defense Law (The Law Offices of Aaron M. Cohen, P.A.), a criminal defense firm based in Boca Raton, Florida. With more than 30 years of experience, Mr. Cohen represents individuals and entities in complex federal and state criminal investigations and prosecutions nationwide. He is admitted to practice law in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, and in the United States District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, the District of Columbia, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the District of New Jersey. He is available pro hac vice in federal districts nationwide.