WPC LHFe:Dߞf4DU; lwQgf8|NKxe8F@O@4wY * cUd'gbENFJ_qSTn,Oܗ#nϓydS'T5YQB[]}YP<'xJ0۶7Vq.F3Ŕqű!H`0F{ӁFq#P O=xɸMSeۤ&&JX 8\:K_9 pB?.CT:o:N'q4lWuoBɱ fNIrܴn' Q/R] |^)eGq!W\屲/nڿ;iXZi`Y_D׼)-A|=ax-qd PDYUڜDCzyO:fW^ \w@h4Efa mNUBbHP9 9 9 9 9  w[ [ BHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(#$  0  (':2u$ !        0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regularob+ [  V DE]b+Q fd3|x TABLE AU <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  u$      1    _ThecontiguouszoneisanareainwhichtheUnitedStates  claimscertainrightsshortofsovereignty.InAugust1999,thePresidentsignedaproclamationtoextendthecontiguouszoneto24milesfromshore,butthisoccurredaftertheeventsimportanttothiscase.PresidentialProclamationNo.7219,64Fed.Reg.48,701(Aug.2,1999).   u$      2    _AlthoughDeLe;nalsobriefedaclaimthathisprior  deportationwasinvalid,hedidnotpresentthatissueinthedistrictcourtorpreserveitinthefaceofhisguiltyplea.Inoralargument,defensecounselinthiscourtwithdrewthisclaimoferror.  u$      2    _AlthoughDeLe;nalsobriefedaclaimthathisprior  deportationwasinvalid,hedidnotpresentthatissueinthedistrictcourtorpreserveitinthefaceofhisguiltyplea.Inoralargument,defensecounselinthiscourtwithdrewthisclaimoferror. m u$      3    _SeeBlackmerv.UnitedStates,284U.S.421,43638(1932);  seealsoRestatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawofthe x UnitedStates403(3)(1987);HartfordFireIns.Co.v. @ California,509U.S.764,79596(1993);NipponPaperIndus.Co., X 109F.3d1,4(1stCir.1997);UnitedStatesv.Plummer,221F.3d   1298,130507(11thCir.2000). d !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T ? * !X-8XXX2XX-8     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals 2  FortheFirstCircuit      XX   A') ` dE< ` A    Xv%XX XNo.002372 K  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,@&Appellee,@tt)v.@,,"ALBERTODELE:N,@ Defendant,Appellant.A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@ FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO@$ $ [Hon._Jos_ԀAntonio_Fust_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<1` A 2 @'Before  @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,  TorruellaandSelya,CircuitJudges. )y! A') ` dE< ` A  $       IrmaR._Valldejuli_,byappointmentofthecourt,for X!& appellant.  Nelson_Prez_Ԅ_Sosa_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom "8( GuillermoGil,UnitedStatesAttorney,andJorgeE.Vega_Pacheco_, #) AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,Chief,CriminalDivision,wereonbrieffortheUnitedStates . *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   '".  SI'L#/ )@37196)@S 0&'L#/ 0ONovember2,2001 SID)$2" )@37196 )@ S('L#3  (  * !    ,,(6?     8v%XXdXXd8*,X` XX*  =[Xdd=   ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge.Inthiscase,AlbertoDeLe;n  appealsfromhisconvictionforattemptingtoreentertheUnitedStatesafterdeportation.Thefactsareundisputed.DeLe;n,acitizenoftheDominicanRepublic,firstenteredtheUnitedStatesin1980.In1995,hewasconvictedinstatecourtofpossessionofheroinwithintenttodistributeandwassentencedtoprison.FollowinghisreleaseinJuly1997,hewasdeportedbaseduponhisconvictionfordrugdealing. ` OnMay16,1999,aU.S.CoastGuardcutterinterceptedasmallyawlabout15nauticalmilesoffthenorthwestcoastofPuertoRico(allreferencesaretonauticalmiles).Theyawlwasininternationalwaters,sinceU.S.territorialwatersextendonly12milesfromshoreand,atthetime,theU.S.contiguouszonealsoextendedonly12milesfromshore. #  1      ׀Theyawlflewnoflagandhad P nolights,registrationnumberorothermarkings.DeLe;nwasoneofthepassengersontheyawl. ` Whenapproachedbythecutter,theyawlturnedawaysharplybutthenhaltedandbegantosink.Theyawlturnedouttobecarrying72Dominicannationals,andvariouspassengersadmittedthattheyawlwasattemptingtotransportthemtoPuertoRico.ThepassengersweretakenbytheCoastGuardtoPuertoRico.There,aninvestigationrevealedthatDeLe;nhadbeenpreviouslydeportedas % * _anaggravatedfelonandhadnotreceivedpermissionfromtheAttorneyGeneraltoentertheUnitedStates. ` AgrandjuryindictedDeLe;nononecountunder8U.S.C.1326(1994).Thatprovisionmakesitacrimeforanalienwhohaspreviouslybeendeportedtoenter,attempttoenter,orbefoundintheUnitedStatesunlesscertainconditionsaremet(suchasreceivingexpressconsentfromtheAttorneyGeneraltoapplyforadmission).Id.1326(a).Thegovernmentalsoinvokedthemore   severepenaltiesthatthestatuteprovideswherethepreviousdeportationoccurredsubsequenttocommissionofanaggravatedfelony.Id.1326(b)(2).DeLe;nmovedtodismissthe P indictment,arguinginteraliathathecouldnotbeconvictedfor 0 anattempttoenterbasedonactsthatoccurredentirelyoutsidetheUnitedStates. ` Thedistrictcourtdeniedthemotion,andDeLe;nthenpledguiltytoattemptingtoentertheUnitedStatesinviolationofthestatuteandwassentencedto70monthsinprison.However,inhispleaagreementDeLe;nreservedtherighttoappealonhisclaimthatthestatutedidnotapplytoconductthatoccurredwhollyoutsidetheUnitedStates.Thatistheonlyissuepresentedtousonthisappeal. #  2       #@(  ` Apartfromhisclaimastoterritorialreach,thereisnodisputethatDeLe;nviolatedthestatute."Attempt,"hereas '`", elsewhere,isaspecificintentcrimeinthesensethatan"attempttoenter"requiresasubjectiveintentonthepartofthedefendanttoachieveentryintotheUnitedStatesaswellasasubstantialsteptowardcompletingthatentry.UnitedStatesv.Gracidas `  Ulibarry,231F.3d1188,119596(9thCir.2000)(enbanc).  @ However,aswithmostfederalcriminalstatutes,thereisnorequirementthatthedefendantadditionallyknowthatwhatheproposestodoi.e.,attempttoentertheUnitedStatesisfor   himcriminalconduct.1LaFave&Scott,SubstantiveCriminalLaw 0  5.1(d)(1986).   ` TheadequacyofthefactualbasisforDeLe;n'spleaisnotdisputed,andanysuchdisputewouldbeforeclosed,absentextraordinarycircumstances,bytheguiltypleaitself.Acevedo p Ramosv.UnitedStates,961F.2d305,307(1stCir.),cert.denied, P 506U.S.905(1992).Asithappens,theevidencewasampletoshowthatDeLe;nwasonavesselseekingtomakeasurreptitiousentryintotheUnitedStates,andgiventhestateandbehaviorofthevesselandthestatementsofotherpassengersitiseasytoinferthatDeLe;nknewfullwellwherehewasheadedandwasonboardforthatpurpose. ` DeLe;ndoesnotargue,norcouldhe,thatCongresslacksconstitutionalauthoritytomakecriminaltheconducttowhichhepledguilty.AlthoughalloftheallegedactsoccurredoutsideoftheUnitedStates,itsterritorialwatersanditsthendefinedcontiguouszone,theactsweredeliberatelydirectedtoproducinganeffectwithintheUnitedStates.Theconstitutionalpowerof +'2 Congresstocriminalizesuchconductisnotindoubt.% #  3      Instead,De  Le;narguesCongressispresumednottointendanextraterritorialapplicationofitsgeneralcriminalstatutes.Alternatively,hesaysthattodosoherewouldviolateatreatywhoseprovisionsaresetforthbelow. ` Itistruethat"'legislationofCongress,unlessacontraryintentappears,ismeanttoapplyonlywithintheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.'"FoleyBros.,Inc.   v.Filardo,336U.S.281,285(1949).Thepolicyreasonsare 0  obvious:oneis"thecommonsensenotionthatCongressgenerallylegislateswithdomesticconcernsinmind."Smithv.United P States,507U.S.197,204n.5(1993).Andthepresumptionalso 0 "servestoprotectagainstintendedclashesbetweenourlawsandthoseofothernations...."EEOCv.ArabianAm.OilCo.,499 P U.S.244,248(1991). ` Here,statutorylanguagetakenalonedoesnotdiscloseCongress'intent;althoughthestatutemakescriminal"attemptstoenter"withoutlimitationastowheretheattemptsoccur,thatwouldbetrueofmanyprovisionsintheCriminalCode,e.g.,18  $ U.S.C.1028(1994)(falseIDdocuments),butfewofthoseprovisionswouldbereadautomaticallytoapplytoconductoccurringsolelyinFranceorNorway.Nordoesthegovernment % * pointtoanylegislativehistorythatmightsuggestaspecialconcernwithattemptstoentertheUnitedStatesthatoccuronthehighseasorinforeigncountriesbutwhichneverreachU.S.territory.Atthesametime,thisseemstousasingularlyeasycasetoconcludethatCongressdidmeantoreachDeLe;n'sconduct. ` Intheordinarysituation,Congresshaslittlereasontocarewhethercitizensinothercountriesbehaveinwaysthatwouldbeforbiddeninthiscountry.Butwherethecrimeinvolvesapriordeportee'sefforttoreentertheUnitedStatesillegally,thefederalinterestisjustaboutthesameasthatwhichleadsCongresstopunishonewho"enters...orisatanytimefoundin,theUnitedStates"afterdeportation.8U.S.C.1326(a)(2).WhywouldCongresswantsomeonecaughtseveralmilesoutsideterritorialwaters,whoisshowntobeattemptingtoenterillegally,tobefreedandgivenasecondchancetomakeamoresuccessfulentry? ` Nochallengeismadeheretothelawfulnessoftheseizure.Hadtheyawlnotbeenclassedasastatelessvessel,thiscouldhaveaffectedtheauthorityoftheCoastGuardtoarrestDeLe;natseaabsentpermissionfromtheflagstate.See46U.S.C. `"& app.1903(c)(1)(C)(Supp.II1996).ButsuchlimitationsonplaceofarrestwouldnotalterCongress'interestincriminalizingDeLe;n'sconductorinprosecutinghimifthegovernmentcouldlawfullyacquirecustody. ` Themoreinterestingquestioniswhetherthestatutewouldapplyiftheactscomprisingthe"attempt"tookplacesolely +'2 withintheterritoryofaforeignstate.Insomecases,theconductifdistantandpreliminarymighteasilyfailtoconstituteanattempt,seeUnitedStatesv.Doyon,194F.3d207,   211(1stCir.1999);butonecanimagineothercaseswhereanattemptwouldbemadeout(e.g.,supposeDeLe;nhadbeencaughtin  @ CanadaamilefromtheborderandadmittedthathewasenroutetoDetroit).WithoutsuggestinganydoubtaboutCongress'powertopunishsuchconduct,weneednotdecidenowwhetherthereisanysuchlimitationonthestatute'sreach. ` ThisbringsustoDeLe;n'sargumentbasedontheConventionontheTerritorialSeaandtheContiguousZone.ThegistoftheargumentisthatbyratifyingtheConventionwhichaffirmativelyauthorizestheenforcementofnationalimmigrationlawsinitscontiguouszoneandterritorialseatheUnitedStateshasimpliedlyagreedthatitwillnotapplyitslawstoconductoccurringbeyondthezone,atleastasto"customs,fiscal,immigrationorsanitaryregulations...." ` TheConvention,ratifiedbytheSenatein1961andenteredintoforcein1964,pertinentlyreadsasfollows:8 ` (1)Inazoneofthehighseascontiguoustoitsterritorialsea,thecoastalStatemayexercisethecontrolnecessaryto: ` x` x 8 ` 8 ` x` x(a)Preventinfringementofitscustoms,fiscal,immigrationorsanitaryregulationswithinitsterritoryorterritorialsea;  0 0 8 ` 8 ` x` x(b)Punishinfringementoftheaboveregulationscommittedwithinitsterritoryorterritorialsea.  0 0  ,'3 8 ` (2)Thecontiguouszonemaynotextendbeyondtwelvemilesfromthebaselinefromwhichthebreadthoftheterritorialseaismeasured[i.e.,theshore].X` x` x ConventionontheTerritorialSeaandtheContiguousZone,Apr.29,  1958,art.24,15U.S.T.1606,1612. ( x  ` ItisunclearhowfartheConventionisconcernedwithauthoritytoproscribeconductasopposedtoauthoritytoenforce.Theintroductorylanguagethecoastalstate"mayexercisethecontrolnecessaryto"suggestsenforcementmeasures,givingthecoastalstate(forexample)thepowertohaltandarrestvesselsofotherstatesengagedininfringingthenamedcategoriesofrules.Cf.Dean,TheGenevaConferenceontheLawoftheSea:WhatWas h Accomplished,52Am.J.Int'lL.607,624(1958)("Thus,hot  pursuitofavesselwhichhascommittedanoffensewithintheterritorialseamaycommenceeventhoughthevesselisfirstsighted,notwithintheterritorialsea,butwithinthecontiguouszone"). ` Moreimportant,assumingthattheConventionalsoprovidesorratifiesapowertoregulatecertainconductwithinthecontiguouszone,theConventionnowherepurportstobarthe !% applicationoffederalstatutestoconduct,whetherwithinorbeyondthecontiguouszone,thathasasubstantialadverseeffectwithintheUnitedStates.ThatpowerwasassumedtoexistwellbeforetheConvention,e.g.,LoganAct,18U.S.C.954(1994),and '(#- wellafter,ForeignTradeAntitrustImprovementsActof1982,18U.S.C.6a(1994),anditisconfirmedbothbycaselawandcommentary.Seenote3,above.Atmost,prescriptionsbeyondthe ,'3 contiguouszonedonotgetthediplomaticprotectionthattheConventionmayaffordifandwhenforeignstatesobject. ` Affirmed.