## Facts

- The U.S. Coast Guard encountered the vessel *Cristiano Ronaldo* on the high seas with four crew members aboard: Elder Nehemias Lopez Hernandez, Saulo Arahon Hernandez Almaraz, Jose Luis Aguilar Lopez, and Samuel Savala Cisneros.
- The government’s evidence showed the crew threw approximately 290 kilograms of cocaine overboard shortly before arrest; the Coast Guard recovered packages from the water that tested positive for cocaine.
- When questioned, the crew claimed the vessel was registered in Guatemala; the claim was later shown to be true.
- At the time of interdiction, Guatemala, when contacted, could neither confirm nor deny the vessel’s registry, and a U.S. State Department designee later certified that Guatemala had not “affirmatively and unequivocally” asserted the vessel’s nationality.
- At trial, the defense argued the cocaine came from another vessel, the *Clara Luz*, not from the *Cristiano Ronaldo*.
- To rebut that theory, the government introduced testimony from Officer Arambula describing Officer Ligsay’s inspection of the *Clara Luz* fish hold and Ligsay’s apparent lack of concern during or after the inspection.
- The district court admitted Arambula’s testimony over objection, treating Ligsay’s conduct as non-hearsay because it was not intended as an assertion.
- The jury convicted all defendants of MDLEA offenses, including possession with intent to distribute cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the vessel was a “vessel without nationality” under the MDLEA—and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction—when the claimed flag state did not affirmatively and unequivocally confirm nationality and a State Department designee certified that fact, even though the vessel was later shown to be registered in that state.
2. Whether the district court erred by admitting testimony about an officer’s nonverbal inspection conduct as non-hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a) because the conduct was not intended as an assertion.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held MDLEA jurisdiction was established because the State Department designee’s certification conclusively proved the flag state had not affirmatively and unequivocally asserted the vessel’s nationality, bringing the vessel within the MDLEA’s definition of “vessel without nationality.”
- The court rejected statutory and constitutional challenges to treating a vessel as stateless for MDLEA purposes based on the flag state’s non-confirmation and the statute’s conclusive-proof mechanism.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Arambula’s testimony about Ligsay’s inspection conduct because there was no evidence Ligsay intended his conduct to communicate an assertion; therefore, it was not a “statement” and not hearsay.

## Legal Principles

- Under the MDLEA, a vessel may be treated as “without nationality” when the claimed flag state does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert nationality in response to a U.S. inquiry.
- A certification by a Secretary of State designee that the foreign nation did not affirmatively and unequivocally assert nationality is conclusive proof of that jurisdictional fact for MDLEA prosecutions.
- Courts applying the MDLEA’s conclusive-proof provision may not look behind the certification to resolve the factual accuracy of underlying registry claims for jurisdiction purposes.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a), nonverbal conduct is a “statement” only if the actor intended it as an assertion; nonassertive conduct offered to support an inference is not hearsay.
- Admission of evidence characterizing nonassertive conduct is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld MDLEA convictions arising from a high-seas cocaine interdiction, ruling that a State Department designee’s certification conclusively established the statute’s jurisdictional “stateless vessel” condition despite later proof of foreign registration, and that testimony describing an officer’s nonassertive inspection conduct was not hearsay under Rule 801(a).


United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017)