Ramos

United States v. Ramos

Good Law
47 F. App'x 471
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 20, 2002Nos. 01-50356, 01-50381; D.C. No. CR-00-02917-J; D.C. No. CR-00-02917-J-02; D.C. No. CR-00-02917-J-01; D.C. No. CR-00-02917-J-05California465 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The appellants in these consolidated eases, Roberto Ramos, Amadeo Portocarrero, Luis Eduardo Conde, and Octavio Velasquez, each entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C.App. § 1903(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The appellants argue that the MDLEA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, and that their convictions must be set aside because the government faded to demonstrate a nexus between them, the conduct charged, and the United States. These arguments lack merit. Regardless of whether the MDLEA would be a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, we have previously held that 46 U.S.C.App. § 1903 is a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power under Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 10 of the United States Constitution to “define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas .... ” United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Aikins, 946 F.2d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.