## Facts

- The U.S. Coast Guard stopped the Panamanian-flag vessel M/V JUAN ROBINSON about 500 nautical miles east of North Carolina.
- Coast Guard officers boarded the vessel with the master’s consent and conducted an initial inspection.
- After developing suspicion, the Coast Guard obtained Panama’s permission to continue searching and to take enforcement action.
- Officers discovered approximately 20 tons of marijuana concealed in a fabricated fuel tank.
- A Panamanian official testified that Panama authorized boarding, inspection, and enforcement actions, including prosecution, against those aboard.
- A jury convicted Hernando and Jorge Robinson of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 955a(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and convicted Hernando, Jorge, and Roberto Robinson of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 955c.

## Issues

1. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 955a(c), incorporating the definition of “customs waters” in 19 U.S.C. § 1401(j), applied to a foreign vessel on the high seas when the flag state consented to U.S. enforcement.
2. Whether exercising U.S. criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals on a foreign-flag vessel on the high seas, based on flag-state consent, violated international law or constitutional due process.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession with intent to distribute and participation in a conspiracy.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The court held that, once Panama consented to U.S. boarding and enforcement, the vessel fell within “customs waters” as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1401(j), bringing the conduct within 21 U.S.C. § 955a(c).
- The court rejected international-law and due-process challenges, finding flag-state consent sufficient and concluding that applying U.S. law in these circumstances was not fundamentally unfair.
- The court held the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find knowledge and participation, given the massive quantity of marijuana and the concealment method on the vessel.

## Legal Principles

- A statute’s geographic reach may extend to foreign vessels on the high seas when Congress incorporates a definition that treats flag-state consent as creating enforceable “customs waters” for U.S. law.
- Under international law, a flag state may authorize another state to board and enforce its laws against persons on the flag state’s vessel on the high seas.
- Due process permits extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal law where defendants have fair notice; flag-state consent and the widely recognized illegality of large-scale drug trafficking support foreseeability.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing evidence in the government’s favor, any rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt; large quantities of contraband and concealment on a small vessel can support inferences of knowing participation and agreement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions arising from a high-seas interdiction, ruling that flag-state consent brought the foreign vessel within the statutory definition of “customs waters,” that this assertion of jurisdiction comported with international law and due process, and that the circumstances supported the jury’s findings of knowing possession and conspiracy.


United States v. Robinson, 843 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988)