USA v. Castro Garcia et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGEL CASTRO GARCIA, )
BOP Reg. #17481-003, )
)
Movant, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00160-JB-N
v. )
) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:19-00033-JB-1
UNITED STATES )
OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ANGEL CASTRO GARCIA, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel
(pro se), filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
dated April 26, 2023 (Doc# 248), seeking relief from the judgment entered against
him in the above-numbered criminal action.
1
The assigned District Judge has
referred Garcia’s § 2255 motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate
action under 28 U.S.C. §636(a)-(b), Rule 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings for the United States District Courts, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See
S.D. Ala. GenLR72(b); (7/7/2026 electronic reference notation). Under S.D. Ala. Gen.
LR 72(a)(2)(R), the undersigned is authorized to require responses, issue orders to
show cause and any other orders necessary to develop a complete record, and to
prepare a report and recommendation to the District Judge as to the appropriate

1
All “Doc#” citations herein refer to the docket of the above-numbered criminal
action. The companion civil action has been opened for administrative and statistical
purposes only, and does not contain or receive any filings.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 1 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

2
disposition of the § 2255 motion, in accordance with 28 U.S. §636(b)(1) and Rule 8(b)
of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
Following examination of the § 2255 motion under Rule 4(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the Court
ordered the Government to answer or otherwise appropriately respond to the motion,
and also set a deadline for Garcia’s reply.
2
(See Docs# 253, 261). The Government
timely filed its response in opposition (Doc# 266), and Garcia timely filed a reply
(Doc# 270) to the response. Garcia’s § 2255 motion (Dos# 248) is now under
submission.
Upon due consideration of the § 2255 motion, the Government’s response,
Garcia’s reply, and the record of prior proceedings under Rules 7 and 8(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the
undersigned finds that neither expansion of the record nor an evidentiary hearing is
warranted, and RECOMMENDS that Garcia’s § 2255 motion be DENIED and
DISMISSED with prejudice.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
For purposes of these findings and recommendations, the undersigned adopts
in part the factual summary of the trial evidence contained in the decision of the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming Garcia’s convictions on direct appeal:

2
See Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts (“The moving party may file a reply to the respondent’s answer or
other pleading. The just must set the time to file unless the time is already set by
local rule.”).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 2 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

3
On Christmas Eve 2018, the United States Coast Guard intercepted a
small, homemade boat on the verge of sinking in choppy waters of the
high seas between the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. The crew of
a Coast Guard airplane first spotted the boat while patrolling the
narcotics-trafficking route northeast of the Dominican Republic and
northwest of Puerto Rico. The guardsmen considered the boat suspicious
because it carried a large number of fuel containers, lacked a visible
name or registration number, and used no navigation lights. They
reported it to a nearby Coast Guard cutter, the Richard Dixon, which
detached a small “over-the-horizon” boat to intercept the suspicious
boat.

The Coast Guard's boat caught up to the suspicious boat about 50
nautical miles from the coast of the Dominican Republic. It approached
with its lights off and shined a spotlight when it was 20 or 30 feet away
from the suspicious boat. Coast guardsmen saw “frantic” activity aboard
the suspicious boat as two men threw things overboard. When the
guardsmen stopped the boat, they found six bales in the water tied to
each other and to a seventh bale still inside the boat.

***
A Coast Guard officer asked the men “who was the master, who was in
charge.” No one answered, so he asked who piloted the boat. One of the
men answered that they all took turns. The others appeared to agree,
based on their body language. The boat had a hand tiller that each
person could operate for only about three hours at a time. The men said
they were traveling from Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic to
Dorado, Puerto Rico....
***
Then the guardsmen searched the smugglers’ boat. They found that the
serial number had been filed off the outboard motor. And the boat
contained no fishing or recreational equipment and only a few personal
items.

***
...The over-the-horizon boat returned the smugglers to the Richard
Dixon. On board, the four men identified themselves as Pedro Dino
Cedado Nunez, Manely Enriquez, Angel Castro Garcia, and Mike Castro
Martinez.

The Richard Dixon brought the smugglers to Saint Thomas in the Virgin
Islands about 10 days later. There, a Homeland Security agent met the
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 3 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

4
smugglers and flew with them to Mobile, Alabama. He interviewed all
four men individually that day.
***
The bales weighed about 180 kilograms, and the four men stipulated
that they contained cocaine.

(Doc# 226, PageID.1488-1492); United States v. Cedado Nunez, 1 F.4th 976, 981–982
(11th Cir. 2021). To the extent it is necessary, this Court will further cite to the trial
transcript when discussing the merits of Garcia's substantive claims.
Garcia and his co-defendants were initially arrested on a criminal complaint
(Doc# 1), and Garcia was appointed counsel at his initial appearance on January 4,
2019. (See Docs# 14, 18). On January 31, 2019, the grand jury for this district
returned an initial indictment that charged the defendants with the following
violations of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA): conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute approximately 182 kilograms of
cocaine on board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction contrary to Title 46 U.S.C.
§70503(a)(1) in violation of Title 46 U.S.C. §70506(b) (Count One); and possession
with intent to distribute approximately 182 kilograms of cocaine on board a vessel
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of Title 46 §70503(a)(1)
(Count Two). (Doc# 40). Garcia, along with his co-defendants, was arraigned on
February 12, 2019, and pleaded not guilty to both counts. (Doc# 46).
Prior to trial, the Government moved for a pretrial ruling on jurisdiction and
venue (Doc# 110). The motion was supported by the statements of U.S. Coast Guard
members that the involved vessel was 50 nautical miles northeast of the Dominican
Republic and had no indicia or documentation of vessel nationality or registry, so they
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 4 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

5
were unable to ascertain who the master was. Further, when asked who was in
charge, the suspects advised that all four of them had driven the vessel. (Doc#110-1,
PageID.248-52). For their part, Garcia and two other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. (Docs# 111, 112, and 116).
At a pretrial hearing, the Court made a preliminary finding of jurisdiction,
stating that the boat, known as a “yola,” was a stateless vessel in international
waters. (Doc# 144, PageID.410). The Court observed that the United States
recognizes a foreign nation’s territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles from the coast
of that nation and, here, the U.S. Coast Guard gained control of the vessel
approximately 50 nautical miles off the coast of Cabo San Rafael, Dominican
Republic.
3
(Doc# 144, PageID.409-10). The Court noted that the vessel yielded no flag,
registration documents, or indicia of nationality and that no crew member claimed
nationality or registry of the vessel. (Doc# 144, PageID.410). The Court rejected the
argument that an evidentiary hearing was required but stated it would hear any
additional evidence on jurisdiction at trial outside of the presence of the jury. (Doc#
144, PageID.413). The Court also made a finding as to venue. (Doc# 144,
PageID.411). Garcia’s counsel objected, citing the need for an evidentiary hearing on
jurisdiction and Confrontation Clause and due process concerns. (Doc# 144,
PageID.413-417).

3
Although Garcia raised the issue that the Coast Guard’s initial observation of the
vessel was 15 miles off the coast, the Court reasoned that the relevant point was
where the vessel was apprehended. (Doc#144, PageID.410).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 5 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

6
At trial, Government witnesses with the Coast Guard and the Department of
Homeland Security testified the yola was intercepted approximately 50 nautical
miles from the Dominican Republic. (Doc# 207, PageID.1052, 1072). Chief Petty
Officer Alejandro Cordova, who was fluent in Spanish, asked the crew members “who
was the master, who was in charge,” but no one replied. (Doc# 207, PageID.1332).
When he asked who was driving the boat, one responded they all took turns. (Doc#
207, PageID.1132). He asked the others if they all took turns, and he interpreted their
body language in response as agreement. (Doc# 207, PageID.1147-48).
The defendants again objected to jurisdiction at trial. ( Doc# 208, PageID.1376-
1377). All defendants unsuccessfully moved for acquittal on the grounds that
government failed to prove jurisdiction at the close of the government’s case and
again after they rested. (Doc# 208, PageID.1280, 1376-78). The Court concluded that
the yola was a stateless vessel
4
and the Court had subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc#
208, PageID.1378). The jury found Garcia and his codefendants guilty of both
charges. (Doc# 208, PageID.1381-83).

4
The undersigned notes that the relevant statute uses the term “vessel without
nationality,” 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A), but the parties and many of our cases
colloquially refer to such vessels as “stateless” vessels. See, e.g., United States v.
Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 818 n.1 (11th Cir. 2024); United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d
1292 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016);
United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014). The Court utilizes the
terms “stateless” and a “vessel without nationality” interchangeably herein.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 6 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

7
The Court sentenced Garcia to concurrent terms of 188 months in prison on
each count,
5
followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. (Doc# 185). All
defendants appealed their convictions to the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc# 173, 176, 180,
199).
Garcia advanced three arguments on direct appeal: (1) that the government
did not prove the defendants’ boat was a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States” under the MDLEA; (2) that the District Court erred in failing to grant
his motion for acquittal because the government failed to prove an essential element
of the offenses for which he was convicted; and (3) the District Court abused its
discretion and violated his right to present a complete defense when it excluded
testimony concerning the circumstances of his transportation to the U.S. on board a
Coast Guard cutter. (Doc# 266-1, PageID.1955, 1972-1974). The Eleventh Circuit
affirmed his conviction on June 17, 2021, in a published opinion. Cedado Nunez, 1
F.4th 976; (Doc# 226).
With respect to jurisdiction, Garcia argued that there was insufficient evidence
the vessel was a “vessel without nationality” subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the
MDLEA because “[a]fter learning that the men took turns piloting the [boat], the
Coast Guard failed to ask the men, individually or collectively, if they wished to make
a claim of nationality or registry for the vessel.” (Doc# 266-1, PageID.1975-1976). He
reasoned that because the men took turns piloting the boat, they took turns being

5
Subsequent to filing the instant Motion to Vacate, Garcia filed a Motion for
Reduction Under Retroactive Sentencing Guideline Amendment 821. (Doc# 277). The
motion was granted, and his sentence was reduced to 151 months. (Doc# 289).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 7 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

8
“individuals in charge” who could have each made a claim for registry or nationality
for the vessel upon request. (Id. at PageID.1976). Garcia cited the Second Circuit’s
decision in United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2019), in support of his
“direct request” argument. (Id. at PageID.1978). Garcia also relied on United States
v. Guerro, 789 Fed. App’x 742 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (holding the government
did not meet its burden of proving jurisdiction under the MDLEA where Coast Guard
failed to ask for the individual in charge and failed to request a claim of nationality
or registry for the vessel) and United States v. Medina, 793 Fed. App’x. 850 (11th Cir.
2019) (holding that MDLEA jurisdiction and statelessness were established where
Coast Guard asked all assembled crew members who was the master and, when none
responded, asked if any crew member wished to make a claim of nationality or
registry of the vessel). (Doc# 266-1, PageID.1976-1978)
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the District Court had jurisdiction under
the MDLEA; that neither the statute nor the Confrontation Clause required an
evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction because the MDLEA made it clear that
jurisdiction was a preliminary question of law to be determined by the trial judge,
and the defendants never identified any contested facts or evidence they wanted to
introduce; and that Garcia was not deprived of the opportunity to present a complete
defense. Cedado Nunez, 1 F.4th 976; (Doc# 226).
Examining jurisdiction, the Eleventh Circuit observed that the three ways to
establish that a vessel is “without nationality” and “subject to the jurisdiction of the
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 8 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

9
United States” set forth in § 70502(d)(1)
6
did not constitute an exhaustive list, as
Section 70502(d)(1) used the word “includes,” rather than the phrase “includes only”
used in the next subsection of the statute. United States v. Cedado Nunez, 1 F.4th at
984. The Eleventh Circuit found that the yola fell within the meaning of “vessel

6
At the time of Garcia’s indictment, 46 U.S.C. §70502(d)(1) provided:

(d) Vessel without nationality.—

(1) In general.--In this chapter, the term “vessel without
nationality” includes--

(A) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in
charge makes a claim of registry that is denied by the nation
whose registry is claimed;

(B) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in
charge fails, on request of an officer of the United States
authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law,
to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel; and

(C) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in
charge makes a claim of registry and for which the claimed nation
of registry does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that
the vessel is of its nationality.

46 U.S.C.A. § 70502(d)(1).
46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1) was amended on December 23, 2022, see James M.
Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-263,
§ 11519, 136 Stat. 2395, 4142 (2022), to add § 70502(d)(1)(D), which defines “vessel
without nationality” as “a vessel aboard which no individual, on request of an officer
of the United States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law,
claims to be the master or is identified as the individual in charge, and that has no
other claim of nationality or registry under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (e).”
The amendment is not relevant to the instant case because Garcia was indicted prior
to the amendment.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 9 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

10
without nationality” under both the MDLEA and international law because “[i]t
carried no documents, it flew no flag, and it had no name or identifying numbers that
would permit entry into a national registry.” Id. at 985. Further, “[n]o one on the
vessel verbally claimed that it had any nationality, nor was the vessel ‘in a position
to provide’ evidence of any nationality.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit observed that “a
Coast Guard officer asked the smugglers who was the master or individual in charge,
and no one claimed to be....The record contains no evidence of a hierarchy amount
the smugglers.” Cedado Nunez, 1 F.4th at 985. The Eleventh Circuit stated that “[t]he
smugglers’ boat had no master or individual in charge who could make a verbal claim
of registry under Section 70502(e)” and found that the Coast Guard was not required
to ask the crew to make a claim of nationality in the absence of the master or
individual in charge. Id. at 985-986.
The Eleventh Circuit held that yola was a stateless vessel and the District
Court had jurisdiction under the MDLEA:
We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction under the Act. The
smugglers’ vessel had no indicia of nationality: no registry papers,
identification markings, flag, or verbal claim of nationality by anyone,
let alone a master or individual in charge. In the absence of any claim
of registry, the vessel lacked nationality.

Id. at 986.
The defendants jointly filed with the United States Supreme Court a petition
for a writ of certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit on the issue of whether the ways to
identify stateless vessels enumerated in §70502(d)(1) were exhaustive. (Doc# 268-2,
PageID.2119). The Court denied the petition on May 2, 2022, Cedado Nuñez v. United
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 10 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

11
States, 142 S. Ct. 2675 (Mem), 212 L. Ed. 2d 762, thus making Garcia’s conviction
final. See Drury v. United States, 507 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that
a federal prisoner’s conviction becomes final for purposes of AEDPA’s limitations
period when the Supreme Court denies a petition for certiorari). Garcia is deemed to
have filed the present § 2255 motion, his first, on April 26, 2023, the date he signed
it. See Daniels v. United States, 809 F.3d 588, 589 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam)
(“Under [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]’s statute of limitations,
a federal prisoner must ordinarily file his §2255 petition within one year of the date
on which his judgment of conviction becomes final. We apply the prison mailbox rule,
under which a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date on the date it
is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. We assume, absent evidence to the
contrary, that a prisoner delivered a filing to prison authorities on the date that he
signed it.” (citations and quotations omitted)).
A one-year statute of limitations period applies for filing a §2255 motion to
vacate. 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). This one-year period begins to run following one of four
possible triggering events. Id. The relevant trigger here is “the date on which the
judgment of conviction becomes final,” id. § 2255(f)(1), and Garcia does not argue
another triggering event applies. Garcia’s conviction became final on May 2, 2022.
His § 2255 motion was filed less than one year later, and there is no dispute that it
was timely filed.
In the form motion, Garcia lists two grounds: (1) the District Court was not the
proper venue and (2) the District Court lacked jurisdiction. (Doc# 248, PageID.1743-
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 11 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

12
1744). Garcia submitted a 40-page memorandum in support of his motion. (Doc# 248-
1). While organized under the general headings of “Ground One - The District Court
of Alabama Was Without Venue Provision To Try Movant For the Offense In This
Case” and “Ground Two - The District Court Was Without Jurisdiction To Try Movant
In This Case” (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1759, 1768), Garcia asserts additional
constitutional claims in his memorandum, in particular, ineffective assistance of
counsel claims, a Felonies Clause challenge to jurisdiction under the MDLEA, and a
Sixth Amendment challenge to the jurisdictional inquiry process of the MDLEA. (See
Doc# 248-1).
Construing Garcia’s § 2255 motion and supporting memorandum liberally, the
Court summarizes the grounds for relief raised as follows:
(1) the Southern District of Alabama was an improper venue;

(2) the Court erred as a matter of law in finding jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C.
§70502(d)(1)(B) because there was insufficient evidence the yola was a
“vessel without nationality” under the MDLEA;

(3) Congress exceeded its authority under the Felonies Clause because it
treats vessels as stateless that would otherwise not be recognized as
without nationality under international law;

(4) Section 70504(a) of the MDLEA is ambiguous on its face and violates
the Sixth Amendment insofar as the judge’s determination of
jurisdiction encroaches on the fact-finding role of the jury;

(5) Ineffective assistance of counsel, including

(a) Failure to object to venue;

(b) Counsel stood by as a “potted plant” and failed to introduce or
elicit on cross-examination any evidence concerning jurisdiction;

(c) Counsel was ignorant of the law;
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 12 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

13

(d) Counsel failed to give competent and professional advice;

(e) Counsel failed to investigate and present appropriate litigation;
and

(f) Counsel did not explain the law to him “as applicable in lieu of
legislative and judicial developments in the law, prior to taking
him to trial.”

(See Doc# 248-1). For the sake of clarity and efficiency of review, the Court has
(re)numbered Garcia’s claims within this Report and Recommendation.
Garcia also filed a Reply in which he attempts to raise the following additional
claims for the first time in this §2255 proceeding:
(6) The vessel was in the “fishery zone” of the Dominican Republic, yet there
was no evidence the Dominican Republic was contacted to establish
jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. §70502(c)(1)(E);

(7) Jury Instruction Number 4 (prohibiting jurors from visiting or viewing
premises or places involved in the case) violated the trial-by-jury
requirement of the Sixth Amendment;

(8) The Court’s limiting defendants’ counsel to cross-examining government
witnesses on jurisdictional evidence outside of the presence of the jury
caused extreme prejudice and violated Eleventh Circuit precedent;

(9) The trial court’s grant of the government’s motion in limine to bar
defendants from introducing evidence about the conditions of
confinement on board the U.S. Coast Guard vessel was an abuse of
discretion;

(10) His trial counsel failed to “stay abreast of,” and bring to Movant’s
attention, the 2018 amendments to the First Step Act extending safety
valve eligibility to cases brought under the MDLEA, which Movant
would have considered in evaluating whether to enter a plea or go to
trial;

(11) The prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false
Google satellite photos showing a larger vessel than a yola;

Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 13 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

14
(12) “[T]he reading of the MDLEA as to Movant is ambiguous and violates
the Supremacy Clause”; and

(13) Liberally construing his reply, Garcia seems to argue that the Coast
Guard’s involvement in his apprehension violated the Posse Comitatus
Act.

(See Doc# 270, PageID.2179-2194).

II. Legal Standards
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, a person in federal custody may move to vacate,
set aside, or correct his sentence. This statute permits collateral challenges in four
circumstances: (1) the imposed sentence violated the Constitution or laws of the
United States, (2) the Court exceeded its jurisdiction to impose the sentence, (3) the
imposed sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or (4) the imposed
sentence is otherwise subject to a collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. §2255(a).
However, “a collateral challenge, such as a §2255 motion, may not be a
surrogate for a direct appeal.” Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.
2004) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165, 102 S. Ct. 1584,
71 L. Ed. 2d 816 (1982) (collecting cases)). “Once the defendant’s chance to appeal
has been waived or exhausted,” a court is “entitled to presume he stands fairly and
finally convicted, especially when, as here, he already has had a fair opportunity to
present his federal claims to a federal forum.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152,
164, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 71 L. Ed. 2d 816 (1982). “Because collateral review is not a
substitute for a direct appeal, the general rules have developed that: (1) a defendant
must assert all available claims on direct appeal, and (2) relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255
is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for that narrow compass of
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 14 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

15
other injury that could not have been raised in direct appeal and would, if condoned,
result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1232 (internal citations, quotations,
and footnote omitted).
The first general rule is commonly known as procedural default (not to be
conflated with the procedural bar), which “is neither statutory nor a constitutional
requirement, but it is a doctrine adhered to by the courts to conserve judicial
resources and to respect the law’s important interest in the finality of judgments.”
McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Massaro v.
United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S. Ct. 1690, 155 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2003)). The
procedural default rule “applies to all claims, including constitutional claims,” and
“the question is not whether legal developments or new evidence has made a claim
easier or better, but whether at the time of the direct appeal the claim was available
at all.” Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1234-35 (citations omitted). As the Eleventh Circuit
recently clarified:
The terms “procedurally barred” and “procedurally defaulted” have
distinct meanings. A procedural bar prevents a defendant from raising
arguments in a §2255 proceeding that he raised and we rejected on
direct appeal. Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir.
2014) (collecting cases). A defendant can overcome a procedural bar
when ... there is a change in law. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S.
333, 342, 94 S. Ct. 2298, 41 L. Ed. 2d 109 (1974).

By contrast, a “procedural default” occurs when a defendant raises a new
challenge to his conviction or sentence in a §2255 motion. Lynn v.
United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1234 (11th Cir. 2004). If a defendant fails
to raise an issue on direct appeal, he may not present the issue in a
§2255 proceeding unless his procedural default is excused. McKay v.
United States, 657 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2011). To overcome a
procedural default, a defendant must show either (1) cause and
prejudice, or (2) a miscarriage of justice, or actual innocence. Id.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 15 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

16

Seabrooks v. United States, 32 F.4th 1375, 1383-84 (11th Cir. 2022). A movant on
collateral review can “avoid the procedural default bar ... if the alleged error is
jurisdictional.” United States v. Bane, 948 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation
omitted).
Under the “cause and prejudice” exception, a movant may overcome procedural
default “by showing cause for not raising the claim of error on direct appeal and actual
prejudice from the alleged error.” McKay, 657 F.3d at 1196. To show cause, “a
defendant must prove that some objective factor external to the defense impeded
counsel’s efforts to raise the claim previously.” Lynn, F.3d at 1235, n. 20 (internal
quotations and citation omitted). Ineffective assistance of counsel may satisfy the
cause exception to a procedural bar, but only where the claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel has merit. United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000).
Cause must also result in “actual prejudice” – that is, it must have “worked to his
actual and substantial disadvantage.” Lomelo v. United States, 891 F.2d 1512, 1515-
16 (11th Cir. 1990).
The “actual innocence” exception means exactly what it says. See McKay, 657
F.3d at 1196 (citation omitted) (explaining “movant’s procedural default is excused if
he can show that he is actually innocent either of the crime of conviction or, in the
capital sentencing context, of the sentence itself.”). This narrow exception permits a
court to allow a defendant to proceed under §2255 “despite his failure to show cause
for procedural default if a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the
conviction of one who is actually innocent.” Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1235-36 (citations and
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 16 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

17
internal quotation omitted). Actual innocence in this context – whether applied to
the crime itself or the associated sentence – “means factual innocence, not mere legal
insufficiency.” McKay, 657 F.3d at 1197-98 (citations omitted).
The federal habeas statute provides that when a § 2255 motion is filed,
“[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusive show that the
prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall ... grant a prompt hearing thereon,
determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect
thereto. 28 U.S.C. §2255(b).
A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he “alleges facts that,
if true, would entitle him to relief.” Aron [v. United States], 291 F.3d
[708,] 715 [(11th Cir. 2002)] (quoting Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d
1545, 1552 (11th Cir. 1989)). “[A] petitioner need only allege—not
prove—reasonably specific, non-conclusory facts that, if true, would
entitle him to relief. Id. at 715 n. 6. However, a district court need not
hold a hearing if the allegations are “patently frivolous,” “based upon
unsupported generalizations,” or “affirmatively contradicted by the
record.” Holmes, 876 F.2d at 1553 (quoting United States v. Guerra, 588
F.2d 519, 520-21 (5th Cir. 1979)); see, e.g., Lynn v. United States, 365
F.3d 1225, 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Because the ... affidavits submitted
by Lynn amount to nothing more than mere conclusory allegations, the
district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the
issues and correctly denied Lynn’s §2255 motion.”).

Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2014) (footnote
omitted). Accord Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2015). In
making this determination, a court must “liberally construe pro se filings, including
pro se applications for relief pursuant to §2255.” Winthrop-Redin, 767 F.3d at 1215.
With these standards in mind, the undersigned turns to Garcia’s claims for relief.

Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 17 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

18
III. Analysis
a. MDLEA
The MDLEA prohibits any person from “knowingly or intentionally ...
possess[ing] with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance” on
board “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” 46 U.S.C. §
70503(a)(1) and (c)(1), and from conspiring to do the same, id. § 70506(b). Section
70503(a)(1) provides that, “[w]hile on board a covered vessel, an individual may not
knowingly or intentionally ... possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a
controlled substance.” Id. § 70503(a)(1) (emphasis added). The definition of a “covered
vessel” includes “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. §
70503(c). Under the statute, a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
includes “a vessel without nationality.” Id. § 70502(c)(1)(A).
Congress amended the MDLEA in 1996 to provide that “[j]urisdiction of the
United States with respect to a vessel subject to this chapter is not an element of an
offense.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a); United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 586
(11th Cir. 2020). Section 70504(a) goes on to state that “[j]urisdictional issues arising
under this chapter are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the
trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a). Moreover, in 2017 Congress amended the MDLEA’s
venue provision, 46 U.S.C. § 70504(b), in 2017 to state as follows: “A person violating
section 70503 or 70508 — (1) shall be tried in the district in which such offense was
committed; or (2) if the offense was begun or committed upon the high seas, or
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 18 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

19
elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, may be tried in
any district.”
1. Venue
Garcia argues that venue was improper in the Southern District of Alabama.
(Doc# 248, PageID.1743; and Doc# 248-1, PageID.1759). Garcia conclusorily asserts
that “[v]enue is proper only where the acts constituting the offense, the crime’s
essential conduct of elements took place.” (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1764). Alternatively,
he argues that venue for his crimes was governed not by § 70504(b), but by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3238, which states:
The trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere
out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be in the district
in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint offenders, is arrested or
is first brought; but if such offender or offenders are not so arrested or brought
into any district, an indictment or information may be filed in the district of
the last known residence of the offender or of any one of two or more joint
offenders, or if no such residence is known the indictment or information may
be filed in the District of Columbia.

Garcia asserts that § 3238 required he be tried in the District of the U.S. Virgin
Islands, where he was first brought following his arrest at sea. (Doc# 248-1,
PageID.1763-64).
In response, the Government argues that Garcia cannot mount a direct
challenge to venue, which is typically waived if not asserted prior to trial. (Doc# 266,
PageID.1933). The Government takes the position that a mere allegation of improper
venue is not cognizable under § 2255, reasoning that a defendant may waive venue,
and that Garcia has not shown he suffered any prejudice from a trial in the Southern
District of Alabama. Alternatively, the Government argues that, even if the issue is
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 19 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

20
cognizable on collateral review, it is procedurally defaulted in this case due to Garcia’s
failure to press venue in the initial stages. (Doc# 266 at PageID.1935). Finally, the
Government argues that Garcia is not entitled to relief on his venue claim because he
has not established an obvious legal error with respect to venue, which the
Government contends is governed by the venue provision of the MDLEA, and because
Garcia failed to identify any ambiguity in the statute. (Doc# 266, PageID.1936-1938).
In his Reply, Garcia equates venue with subject matter jurisdiction and argues that
waiver cannot be presumed from a silent record. (Doc# 270, PageID.2169-2171).
Although the Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have addressed this precise
issue, other courts have found that a claim of improper venue is not subject to
collateral attack in a § 2255 proceeding. See Alvarez-Cuan v. United States, No. 8:12-
CR-519-T-27AEP, 2020 WL 5407559, at *6–7 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2020); Ogrizovich v.
United States, 805 F.2d 1035 (6th Cir. 1986); Entrekin v. United States, 508 F.2d
1328, 1330 (8th Cir. 1974). Whether a claim is cognizable in a §2255 proceeding is a
“threshold issue.” Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004).
Assuming without deciding that Garcia’s venue claim is cognizable under § 2255, it
is nevertheless both procedurally defaulted and without merit.
“Venue is non-jurisdictional and can be waived.” United States v. Salazar-
Marcano, No. 22-12182, 2023 WL 3244596, at *2 (11th Cir. May 4, 2023) (per curiam)
(citing Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165 167-68 (1939) and
Baeza v. United States, 543 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 1976)) (holding venue challenge
was waived where plea agreement did not reserve the right to appeal denial of motion
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 20 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

21
to dismiss for improper venue and plea colloquy did not include request to reserve
that right)).
7
Garcia failed to raise this argument in either a Rule 12(b) motion before
the District Court or on direct appeal.
To overcome this procedural default, Garcia must show either (1) cause and
prejudice, or (2) a miscarriage of justice, or actual innocence. McKay, 657 F.3d at
1196. In his form § 2255 motion, Garcia states that he failed to raise his improper
venue claim on direct appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc# 247,
PageID.1682). To the extent Garcia asserts such ineffective assistance as cause to
excuse his procedural default, he cannot succeed because, as explained below, his
venue challenge is meritless, and counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a
meritless issue. See United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000)
(counsel “is not ineffective for failing to raise claims reasonably considered to be
without merit” (quotation omitted)); Denson v. United States, 804 F.3d 1339, 1342
(11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“Failing to make a meritless objection does not
constitute deficient performance.”). Additionally, Garcia does not claim in his §2255
motion that he is actually innocent, and he has not presented any evidence of actual
innocence. Therefore, Garcia has procedurally defaulted his improper venue claim.
Garcia’s venue claims are also meritless. First, the United States Constitution
gives Congress plenary power to set venue for criminal offense committed outside of
any state, such as the ones at issue here, without regard to where any part of the

7
The Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
decided prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 21 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

22
crime was committed. Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that
when a crime is “not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or
Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3
(emphasis added). True, the later-ratified Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law....” U.S. Const. amend.
VI. However, the United States Supreme Court has long interpreted the Sixth
Amendment’s “previously ascertained” clause as indicating that amendment “has
reference only to offenses against the United States committed within a state.” Cook
v. United States, 138 U.S. 157, 181, 11 S. Ct. 268, 34 L. Ed. 906 (1891). The Court
explained:
The second section of article 3 had provided, in respect to crimes committed
in the states, that the trial by jury should be had within the state where the
crime was committed. The sixth amendment added the further guaranty,
in respect to the place of trial, that the district should have been previously
ascertained by law, leaving the trial of offenses not committed within any
state to be controlled by the second section of article 3. The requirement in
the latter section is that the trial ‘shall be at such place or places as the
congress may by law have directed.’ ‘As crimes,’ said Mr. Justice Story,
commenting upon this section, ‘may be committed on the high seas and
elsewhere, out of the territorial jurisdiction of a state, it was indispensable
that in such cases congress should be enabled to provide the place of trial.’
2 Story, Const. § 1781.

Id. at 181–82. See also Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 324 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[W]hen an
offense was not committed within a state but in territory assigned to a district for
judicial purposes, the ‘previously ascertained’ provision was held to be inapplicable
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 22 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

23
and Congress could, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, clause 3, fix another district
for trial of such offenses after they were committed.” (citing Cook, 138 U.S. at 181-82)
(reaffirmed in United States v. Cuevas-Almonte, 156 F.4th 319, 330 (3d Cir. 2025)).
In an attempt to avoid a straight-forward application of the MDLEA’s venue
provision, Garcia contends §§ 70503 and 70504 are ambiguous and must be read in
pari materia with § 3238, which he argues controls here. (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1766-
1767). Garcia does not specify how § 70504(b) is ambiguous. Instead, he relies on
United States v. Ahumado-Avedano, 872 F.2d 367 (11th Cir. 1989), a case interpreting
the meaning of the term “United States” in 46 U.S.C. 1903(f), an older venue provision
in the MDLEA. (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1763-1764).
The prior MDLEA venue statute, 46 U.S.C. 1903(f), provided:
Any person who violates this section shall be tried in the United States
district court at the point of entry where that person enters the United
States, or in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.

In Ahumedo-Avendano, the Eleventh Circuit had to determine whether the
naval installation at Guantanamo Bay, where the defendant was first bought but
which was outside of any judicial district, was part of the “United States” for purposes
of determining venue under the MDLEA. United States v. Ahumedo-Avendano, 872
F.2d 367, 371 (11th Cir. 1989). Relying on Ahumedo-Avendano, Garcia argues that
46 U.S.C. § 70504’s venue provision is ambiguous regarding the meaning of “United
States” and whether the district courts in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
had authority to try offenders for violations of the MDLEA. The problem with this
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 23 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

24
argument is that the MDLEA’s venue provision was revised in 2017
8
and now differs
from the language at issue in Ahumedo-Avendano, see supra.

Section 70504(b)’s unambiguous discretionary venue provision permits Garcia
to be tried in any district. The MDLEA “makes clear that ‘if the offense was begun or
committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular
State or district,’ the accused ‘may be tried in any district.’ ” United States v.
Gonzales-Cahvec, 750 F. App'x 853, 855 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting 46 U.S.C. §
70504(b)(2)). That provision clearly applies to Garcia’s crimes, and the Court need
not rely on a canon of construction to interpret the unambiguous statute. See United
States v. Warren, 820 F.3d 406, 408 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Courts generally apply in pari
materia only when a legal text is ambiguous.”)). Moreover, Garcia’s argument still
fails to the extent there is a conflict between the two statutes. “The Eleventh Circuit
has held that when two statutes conflict, the later-enacted statute controls to the
extent it conflicts with the earlier-enacted statute. Moreover, a specific statutory
provision trumps a general one.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. U.S. Army
Corps of Eng'rs, 619 F.3d 1289, 1299 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Under either

8

[T]he Crimes Act of 1790, enacted by the First Congress, ... provided that trial
for [high seas] offenses “shall be in the district where the offender is
apprehended, or into which he may first be brought.” Ch. 9, § 8, 1 Stat. 112,
114 (1790). Congress...codified that provision’s modern progeny as Section
3238. Until 2017 the MDLEA’s venue provision likewise provided venue to the
district where the accused was first brought. Pub. L. No. 109-304, § 10(2), 120
Stat. 1485, 1688 (2006).

United States v. Cuevas-Almonte, 156 F.4th 319, 331 (3d Cir. 2025).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 24 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

25
of those rules, § 70504(b) controls here. The current version of § 70504(b) was enacted
in 2017, well after § 3238 was last amended in 1963, see Pub. L. No. 88-27, 77 Stat.
48 (2022). Moreover, § 70504(b)(2) sets venue for certain specified high seas offenses,
while § 3238 only applies to high seas offenses generally.
Garcia’s prosecution in the Southern District of Alabama complied with both
the Constitution and venue statutes. His improper-venue claim is without merit.
2. Jurisdiction
Garcia contends this Court lacked jurisdiction to try him for the subject
offenses, and that the finding that it had jurisdiction under the MDLEA was
erroneous as a matter of law. (Doc# 248, PageID.1744; Doc# 248-1, PageID.1761,
1768). He challenges both the constitutionality of the MDLEA and whether the
government met its burden of proof that the yola was a “vessel without nationality”
subject to United States jurisdiction under the MDLEA. (See Doc# 248-1). In
response, the Government acknowledges that jurisdictional defects cannot be
procedurally defaulted, but argues that Garcia has not called into question the
Eleventh Circuit’s ruling on the jurisdictional issue in his direct appeal, which is
binding precedent. (Doc# 266, PageID.1941).
“Habeas corpus has long been available to attack convictions and sentences
entered by a court without jurisdiction.” Yency Nunez v. United States, 858 Fed. App’x
320, 322 (11th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting United States v.
Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185, 99 S. Ct. 2235, 60 L. Ed. 2d 805 (1979)). “While a habeas
proceeding generally cannot ‘do service for an appeal,’ a challenge to a court’s
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 25 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

26
jurisdiction is an exception.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Because
parties cannot by acquiescence or agreement confer jurisdiction on a federal court, a
jurisdictional defect cannot be waived or procedurally defaulted—instead, a judgment
tainted by a jurisdictional defect must be reversed.” McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d
1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (“A
prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming
the right to be released upon the ground...that the court was without jurisdiction to
impose such sentence...”).
The Eleventh Circuit has “interpreted the ‘on board a vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States’ provision of the MDLEA as a congressionally
imposed limit on a court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Mejia, 734 F.
App'x 731, 732 (11th Cir. 2018). “Jurisdiction...is not an element of an [MDLEA]
offense[,]” and jurisdictional issues “are preliminary questions of law to be
determined solely by the trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. §70504(a). “The government bears
the burden of establishing that the statutory requirements of MDLEA subject-matter
jurisdiction are met.” United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 588 (11th Cir.
2020) (citation omitted). “Due process in the context of extraterritorial jurisdiction
requires only that the exercise of jurisdiction not be arbitrary or fundamentally
unfair.” United States v. Gonzales-Cahvec, 750 F. App’x 853, 856 (11th Cir. 2018)
(citing United States v. Batson, 818 F.3d 651, 669 (11th Cir. 2016)).
Garcia argues that the Court erred as a matter of law in finding jurisdiction
under 46 U.S.C. §70502(d)(1)(B) under the circumstances of the case. (Doc# 248-1,
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 26 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

27
PageID.1771-1772). Garcia contends there was insufficient evidence to support the
court’s finding that the vessel was a “vessel without nationality” subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.
(Id., PageID.1769-1771). He admits the vessel was “on the high seas between the
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico,” when it was intercepted by the U.S. Coast
Guard, but contends that there was insufficient proof that it was a stateless vessel.
9

(Doc# 248-1, PageID.1758).
Garcia relies on the Second Circuit case of United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d
121 (2d Cir. 2019), in support of his position that an officer of the United States must
request a claim of registry and the master or individual in charge must fail to answer
this request before a vessel can be deemed stateless under § 70502(d)(1)(B). (Doc#
248-1, PageID.1774). He concedes that the U.S. Coast Guard officials asked the
defendants for the master of the vessel, but he argues the U.S. Coast Guard officers
should have gone further and asked the crew members to make a claim of nationality
or registry for the vessel. (Id., PageID.1775-1776). Garcia contends that “[b]ecause
the Coast Guard failed to ask...it is equally possible one of the four defendants
possessed the authority as the individual in charge to make the registry of nationality
for the vessel.” (Id., PageID.1775). Based on this, Garcia argues the Government

9
Garcia briefly states, in passing, in his supporting memorandum that the vessel was
“seized ... in Archipelagic waters of Dominican Republic, which falls under the United
Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea....” (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1699) He does
not tie this contention to any specific jurisdictional or constitutional claim.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 27 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

28
failed to prove there was no one on board who could make a claim of registry or
nationality. (Id., PageID.1776).
This is the same argument that Garcia raised, and the Eleventh Circuit
expressly rejected, on direct appeal. See (Doc# 266-1, PageID.1975-1978); Cedado
Nunez, 1 F.4th at 984-86. A procedural bar prevents a defendant from raising the
same arguments in a § 2255 proceeding that were raised and rejected on direct
appeal. Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting
cases). “Once a matter has been decided adversely to a defendant on direct appeal it
cannot be re-litigated in a collateral attack under section 2255[,]” United States v.
Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted),
unless “there is an intervening change in law.” Seabrooks v. United States, 32 F.4th
1375, 1383 (11th Cir. 2022). Garcia’s claim that there was insufficient evidence the
vessel was a “vessel without nationality” subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the
MDLEA was adversely decided against him by the Eleventh Circuit on direct appeal,
see Cedado Nunez, 1 F.4th at 984-86, and there is no indication an intervening change
in controlling law would change that result. Thus, Garcia is procedurally barred from
attempting to re-litigate this issue by means of a § 2255 claim, regardless of its
jurisdictional nature. See United States v. Roberts, 79 F. App'x 368, 370 n.2 (10th Cir.
2003) (unpublished) (“[B]ecause Roberts’ assertions regarding the district court's
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 28 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

29
jurisdiction were raised and decided on direct appeal, they cannot be raised in a §
2255 motion...”).
10

3. Constitutionality of the MDLEA
While much of Garcia’s memorandum is devoted to the issue of whether the
prosecution met its burden of demonstrating that the yola was a stateless vessel
under the MDLEA, Garcia also argues the MDLEA is unconstitutional. First, Garcia
argues that MDLEA’s definition of stateless vessel in § 70502(d)(1)(C) does not
comport with international law and that Congress exceeded its authority under the
Felonies Clause because it treats vessels as stateless that would otherwise not be
recognized as without nationality under international law. (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1768-

10
The undersigned is mindful that defects in subject matter jurisdiction cannot
be waived or procedurally defaulted. See McCoy, 266 F.3d at 1249. However, Garcia’s
claim that there was insufficient evidence the defendants’ boat was a “vessel without
nationality” to confer subject matter jurisdiction is not procedurally barred because
it was not raised on direct review; it is procedurally barred because it was raised, and
decided adversely, on direct appeal. See Seabrooks, 32 F.4th at 1383-84 (explaining
the difference between “procedurally barred” and “procedurally defaulted” with
regard to § 2255 motions).
The Government does not argue procedural bar in its response. However, in
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 164 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2006), the
Supreme Court confronted the question of ‘whether a federal court lacks authority,
on its own initiative, to dismiss a habeas petition as untimely, [if] the State has
answered the petition without contesting its timeliness,’ 547 U.S. at 202, 126 S. Ct.
at 1679, or has erroneously conceded the timeliness issue, see id. at 205, 126 S. Ct. at
1681. The Supreme Court ruled that a district court may act on its own initiative to
dismiss a petition in such a circumstance, provided the court ‘accord[s] the parties
fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions.’ Id. at 210, 126 S. Ct. at
1684.” Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 654 (11th Cir. 2020) (per
curiam). Day’s holding is readily applicable to procedural-bar claims. To the extent
either party objects to the sua sponte invocation of procedural bar here, that party
can raise it as part of the objections permitted to this Report and Recommendation.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 29 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

30
1769, 1788-1789). Second, Garcia argues § 70504(a) of the MDLEA is “ambiguous on
its face, because a requirement of judicial fact-finding, instead of jury fact-finding,
violates the trial by jury requirement of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.”
(Id., PageID.1787). Each of these claims is foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit precedent.
As to the first argument, § 70502(d)(1)(C) defines one way that a vessel may
qualify as a “vessel without nationality” and describes a “vessel about which the
master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry and for which the claimed
nation of registry does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel is
of its nationality.” These circumstances are not present in this case, as there was no
master or individual in charge who made a claim of registry for the yola. His
argument that § 70502(d)(1)(C) is unconstitutional as applied to him lacks merit.
More importantly, the Eleventh Circuit recently considered and rejected
Garcia’s exact Felonies-Clause argument with respect to § 70502(d)(1)(C). In United
States v. Canario-Vilomar, the Eleventh Circuit rejected an argument on direct
appeal that Congress had “overstepped its bounds” by defining a “vessel without
nationality” in 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C) to include vessels that are not recognized
as stateless under international law. 128 F.4th 1374, 1376 (2025). Reviewing the
jurisdictional challenge de novo, the Eleventh Circuit found that Congress was not
constrained by international law in crafting its definition of a stateless vessel or in
defining the boundaries of the high seas, expressly stating that “the Felonies Clause
is not limited by customary international law.” 128 F.4th 1374, 1380–81 (11th Cir.
Feb. 18, 2025) (quoting United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 826 (11th Cir. 2024)).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 30 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

31
The Eleventh Circuit held that Congress “did not act beyond the grant of authority
in the Felonies Clause when defining ... a ‘vessel without nationality.’ ” Id. at 1380–
81. Accord United States v. Martinez, 172 F.4th 1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2026) (per
curiam). Accordingly, Garcia’s Felonies-Clause and international law arguments are
foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit precedent.
11

As to Garcia’s claim that § 70504(a) violates the Sixth Amendment right to
trial by jury, the Eleventh Circuit has held that, “because the MDLEA’s jurisdictional
requirement goes to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the courts and is not an
essential element of the MDLEA substantive offense, it does not have to be submitted
to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Cabezas-Montano,
949 F.3d 567, 587 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088,
1109-12 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 715, 722 (11th Cir. 2019);
United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v.
Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 809 (11th Cir. 2014); and United States v. Rendon 354 F.3d
1320, 1326-28 (11th Cir. 2003)). Garcia’s argument that 46 U.S.C. §70504(a) violates

11
Embedded in this claim is a brief argument that the exercise of jurisdiction over
him violated the “hot pursuit” doctrine of international law. (Doc# 248-1,
PageID.1779-80). However, a person charged with a violation of the MDLEA “does
not have standing to raise a claim of failure to comply with international law as a
basis for a defense.”46 U.S.C. § 70505; see United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292,
1301–02 (11th Cir. 2017). Such a claim “may be made only by a foreign nation” and
“does not divest a court of jurisdiction.” 46 U.S.C. § 70505. Accordingly, “any battle
over the United States’[s] compliance with international law in obtaining MDLEA
jurisdiction should be resolved nation-to-nation in the international arena, not
between criminal defendants and the United States in the U.S. criminal justice
system.” United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374,1379 (11th Cir. 2025)
(quoting Hernandez, 864 F.3d at 1302).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 31 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

32
his Sixth Amendment rights is also foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit precedent and is
without merit.
b. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Although not clearly identified as a standalone constitutional claim in his form
motion, Garcia does assert in his form motion that he failed to raise his arguments
concerning venue and jurisdiction on appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
12

(Doc# 248, PageID.1743, 1745). Further, Garcia expressly argues in his memorandum
in support of his § 2255 motion that ineffective assistance of counsel deprived him of
his right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment and his Sixth Amendment
rights. (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1754). Specifically, Garcia argues that his trial counsel
“failed to raise objections based on the defects in the institution of the prosecution’s
case before this court.”
13
(Doc# 248-1, PageID.1759).
Garcia argues that trial counsel’s failure to object to venue constitutes
ineffective assistance of counsel that caused him extreme prejudice. (Doc# 248-1,
PageID.1767-68). Garcia acknowledges that his trial counsel moved for an acquittal
on the basis of lack of jurisdiction but contends that his counsel’s arguments “lacked
substance” and that trial counsel failed to cross examine the Coast Guard witnesses

12
The undersigned observes that Garcia’s counsel challenged whether the United
States met its burden of proving jurisdiction under the MDLEA both in the trial court
and on direct appeal. (Doc# 111; Doc# 208, PageID.1280-1281, 1376-1377; Doc# 266-
1).

13
Although Garcia does not specify whether his ineffective assistance claims are
directed at trial counsel or appellate court, the Court deduces they are directed at
trial counsel based on the errors alleged.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 32 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

33
at trial concerning alleged jurisdictional defects in the institution of the prosecution.
(Id. at PageID.1760). Garcia also generally alleges, without further explanation,
factual support, or citations to the record, that trial counsel was “ignorant of the law
and was not ... capable of addressing erroneous findings of facts for clear error,”
“failed to give competent and professional advice,” “failed to investigate and present
appropriate litigation,” and “was a mere ‘potted plant.’ ” (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1757-
1758, 1774). Garcia submits that counsel “did not explain the law to [Garcia], as
applicable in lieu of legislative and judicial developments in the law, prior to taking
him to trial.” (Id., PageID.1757).
The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to effective
assistance of counsel. U.S.
CONST. amend. VI; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). “[F]ailure to raise an ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal does not bar the claim from being
brought up in a later, appropriate proceeding under §2255.” Massaro v. United States,
538 U.S. 500, 509, 123 S. Ct. 1690, 155 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2003). Indeed, “in most cases
a motion brought under §2255 is preferable to direct appeal for deciding claims of
ineffective assistance.” Id. at 504. See also United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260,
1267 (11th Cir. 2013) (“An ineffective assistance claim should usually be raised in a
motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255,” (citing United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324,
1328 (11th Cir. 2010))). “To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a
defendant must show that (1) ‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness’ and (2) that such failure prejudiced him in that ‘there is
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 33 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

34
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.’ ” United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938, 941
(11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-688, 694).
“ ‘Conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance are insufficient.’ ” Wilson v.
United States, 962 F. 2d 996, 998 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (quoting United States
v. Lawson, 947 F.2d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “[b]cause both parts of the
test must be satisfied in order to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment, the court
need not address the performance prong if the defendant cannot meet the prejudice
prong, or vice versa.” Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). See also Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A
habeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must carry his burden on
both Strickland prongs, and a court need not address both prongs if the defendant
has made an insufficient showing on one.”); Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1176
(11th Cir. 2001) (“The petitioner bears the burden of proof on the ‘performance’ prong
as well as the ‘prejudice’ prong of a Strickland claim, and both prongs must be proved
to prevail.”). “The Strickland test is not easily met; ... ‘the cases in which habeas
petitioners can properly prevail on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel are
few and far between. []’ ” Johnson, 256 F.3d at 1176 (quoting Waters v. Thomas, 46
F.3d 1506, 1511 (11th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (citation omitted))).
“The test for ineffectiveness is not whether counsel could have done more;
perfection is not required.” Waters, 46 F.3d at 1518. Accord, e.g., Burt v. Titlow, 571
U.S. 12, 24, 134 S. Ct. 10, 187 L. Ed. 2d 348 (2013) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment does not
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 34 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

35
guarantee the right to perfect counsel; it only promises the right to effective
assistance...”). “A lawyer can almost always do something more in every case. But
the Constitution requires a good deal less than maximum performance.” Atkins v.
Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 960 (11th Cir. 1992).
In evaluating the first, or “performance,” prong of Strickland, “[j]udicial
scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.”
[Strickland, 466 U.S.] at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Because retrospective
evaluation of a lawyer’s performance can be difficult, “a court must
indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant
must overcome the presumption that ... the challenged action might be
considered sound trial strategy.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). A
petitioner must identify specific acts or omissions that were not the
result of reasonable professional judgment, and a court should deem
these acts or omissions deficient only if their “were outside the wide
range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690, 104 S. Ct. at
2066. Simply put, the deference afforded an attorney’s decision is great
and the bar for proving a Sixth Amendment violation is high. In light
of the “strong presumption” in favor of competence,”...in order to prove
deficient performance, “a petitioner must establish that no competent
counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did take.”
Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (en
banc).

Under the second, or “prejudice,” prong of Strickland, a petitioner must
“affirmatively prove prejudice” by showing that counsel’s errors
“actually had an adverse effect on the defense.” 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S.
Ct. at 2067. This requires a showing of more than “some conceivable
effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. Instead, the petitioner
“must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068.
Although this standard is difficult to meet, it is significant that a
petitioner must show only a reasonable probability that the outcome
would have been different; he “need not show that counsel’s deficient
conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Id. at
693, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. When evaluating this probability, “a court
hearing on an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the
evidence before the judge or jury.” Id. at 695, 104 S. Ct. at 2069.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 35 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

36

Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043, 1059-60 (11th Cir. 2002). “The reasonableness of
counsel’s performance is to be evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time of the
alleged error and in light of all the circumstances. In making the competency
determination, the court should keep in mind that counsel’s function, as elaborated
in prevailing professional norms, is to make the adversarial testing process work in
the particular case.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 394, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91
L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-91) (citations and quotations
omitted).
To the extent Garcia seeks to raise an independent claim that counsel was
ineffective in failing to raise a venue objection, counsel is not ineffective in failing to
raise an argument that has no legal basis. Freeman v. Attorney General, State of
Florida, 536 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2008). The MDLEA “makes clear that ‘if the
offense was begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere outside the
jurisdiction of any particular State or district,’ the accused ‘may be tried in any
district.’ ” United States v. Gonzales-Chavec, 750 F. App’x 853, 855 (11th Cir. 2018)
(unpublished) (quoting 46 U.S.C. §70504(b)(2)). Any ineffective assistance of counsel
claim related to Garcia’s venue challenge is likewise without merit for the reasons
outlined above.
With respect to jurisdiction, Garcia appears to fault his trial counsel for failing
“to introduce or elicit on cross examination on the jurisdictional defects in the
institution of the Prosecution” and, instead, moving for a judgment of acquittal on the
ground of the government’s failure to prove jurisdiction. (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1760).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 36 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

37
Garcia does not develop this argument any further. Liberally construing this
statement, he appears to fault his trial attorney relative to cross-examining the
Government’s witnesses and possibly for failing to call other witnesses to offer
testimony concerning jurisdiction.
“The decision as to whether to cross-examine a witness is ‘a tactical one well
within the discretion of a defense attorney.” Fugate v. Head, 261 F.3d 1206, 1219
(11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). A petitioner cannot establish an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim unless he shows at least “a single specific instance where
cross-examination arguably could have affected the outcome of either the guilt or
sentencing phase of the trial.” Id. “Ineffective assistance ... will not be found merely
because ‘other testimony might have been elicited from those who testified.’ ” Id.
(quoting Waters, 46 F.3d at 1514).
Under this reasoning, Garcia’s ineffective assistance claim fails. Garcia has not
identified any specific questions that should have been asked of any specific Coast
Guard witnesses. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that Garcia’s boat was a stateless
vessel because “[t]he smugglers’ vessel had no indicia of nationality: no registry
papers, identification markings, flag, or verbal claim of nationality by anyone, let
alone a master or individual in charge.” Cedado Nunez, 1 F. 4th at 986. Garcia has
not shown how a cross-examination of the Government’s witnesses would have
elicited any new facts that would have would have affected the “vessel without
nationality” determination or changed the outcome of his trial. Garcia's conclusory
allegations regarding cross-examination of the Coast Guard witnesses do not
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 37 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

38
establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Garcia’s attorneys pursued his
jurisdictional objections throughout the proceedings.
Garcia also generally alleges, without further explanation, factual support, or
citations to the record, that trial counsel was “ignorant of the law and was not ...
capable of addressing erroneous findings of facts for clear error,” “failed to give
competent and professional advice,” “failed to investigate and present appropriate
litigation,” and “was a mere ‘potted plant.’ ” (Doc# 248-1, PageID.1756-1757, 1774).
Garcia submits that counsel “did not explain the law to [Garcia], as applicable in lieu
of legislative and judicial developments in the law, prior to taking him to trial.” (Id.,
PageID.1757).
To the extent these contentions can be considered independent claims for relief,
they do not afford Garcia any. Garcia’s factually unsupported, bare allegations are
insufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Garcia has not
identified any facts counsel failed to investigate or evidence counsel failed to obtain.
“Speculation is insufficient to carry the burden of a habeas corpus petitioner as to
what evidence could have been revealed by further investigation.” Aldrich v.
Wainwright, 777 F.2d 630, 636 (11th Cir.1985). Garcia does not explain what counsel
did, what counsel failed to do, how it prejudiced Garcia, or how the outcome of his
case may have been different. “A petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary
hearing...when his claims are merely conclusory allegations unsupported by
specifics...” Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks
omitted). He fails to show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 38 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

39
standard of reasonableness or that he was prejudiced by counsel's allegedly deficient
performance. Consequently, he is entitled to no relief on this claim.
The undersigned does not find merit in Garcia’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claims.
c. New Arguments Raised in Reply
In his reply dated September 27, 2023, Garcia attempts to raise new claims for
the first time. (Doc# 270). Buried within his other arguments, Garcia raises new
claims, numbered by the Court as follows:
(6) The vessel was in the “fishery zone” of the Dominican Republic, yet there
was no evidence the Dominican Republic was contacted to establish
jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. §70502(c)(1)(E);
14

14
Garcia asserts that 50 nautical miles is within a 200 mile “fishery zone” and
that there was no evidence that the Dominican Republic was contacted. (Doc# 270,
PageID.2179-2180). To the extent that this argument could be considered as falling
under the more general umbrella of the jurisdictional objection asserted in Garcia’s §
2255 form motion and supporting memorandum, rather than a “new” claim, the Court
will address it. The MDLEA at 46 U.S.C. §70502(c)(1)(A)-(F) sets forth six paths by
which the Government can establish Garcia was on board a “vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.” Here, the yola was a “vessel without nationality”
for purposes of §70502(c)(1)(A), which renders it “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States.”
Garcia has not advanced or articulated an argument that application of the
MDLEA to vessels beyond the 12-mile territorial waters limit, yet in this 200-mile
“fishery zone,” exceeds congressional authority and is unconstitutional. Nonetheless,
the Court points out that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, stateless vessels
apprehended beyond the 12-mile boundary of territorial waters are considered to be
in international waters and subject to MDLEA jurisdiction. United States v. McPhee,
336 F. 3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2003). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit held, as a matter
of first impression, that a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (beyond a nation’s
territorial waters but within 200 miles of the coastal baseline) is part of the “high
seas” for purposes of the Felonies Clause. United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815,
821-823 (11th 2024). Accord Martinez, 172 F.4th at 1312.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 39 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

40
(7) Jury Instruction Number 4 (prohibiting jurors from visiting or viewing
premises or places involved in the case) violated the trial-by-jury
requirement of the Sixth Amendment;

(8) The Court’s limiting defendants’ counsel to cross-examining government
witnesses on jurisdictional evidence outside of the presence of the jury
caused extreme prejudice and violated Eleventh Circuit precedent;

(9) The trial court’s grant of the government’s motion in limine to bar
defendants from introducing evidence about the conditions of
confinement on board the U.S. Coast Guard vessel was an abuse of
discretion;

(10) His trial counsel failed to “stay abreast of,” and bring to Movant’s
attention, the 2018 amendments to the First Step Act extending safety
valve eligibility to cases brought under the MDLEA, which Movant
would have considered in evaluating whether to enter a plea or go to
trial;

(11) The prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false
Google satellite photos showing a larger vessel than a yola;

(12) “[T]he reading of the MDLEA as to Movant is ambiguous and violates
the Supremacy Clause”; and

(13) Liberally construing his reply, Garcia seems to argue that the Coast
Guard’s involvement in his apprehension violated the Posse Comitatus
Act.

(See Doc# 270, PageID.2179-2194).

“Although Clisby [v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992)] requires a
district court to resolve every claim properly presented in a § 2255 motion, it does not
require the court to address a claim that a movant waives by failing to raise it until
his reply brief.” Oliveiri v. United States, 717 F. App’x 966, 967 (11th Cir. 2018) (per
curiam) (unpublished). See also United States v. Howard, 28 F. 4th 180, 201, n. 6
(11th Cir. 2022) (“Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly
before a reviewing court.”) (quotations and alterations omitted).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 40 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

41
These new arguments, raised for the first time in Garcia’s reply memorandum,
are waived for failure to raise them in his initial § 2255 motion. See McLellan v.
United States, No. CR 1:17-0093-KD-N, 2022 WL 3129584, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 4,
2022) (arguments raised for the first time in a §2255 reply brief are waived); United
States v. Santoriello, 2021 WL 3549907, at *7 (N.D. Fla. July 8, 2021), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:17CR57/RV/EMT, 2021 WL 3533736 (N.D. Fla. Aug.
10, 2021) (argument raised for the first time in a 2255 reply brief is waived); McKiver
v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't. of Corr., 991 F.3d 1357, 1364 n.1 (11th Cir. 2021) (arguments
raised for the first time in a party's reply brief are waived); see also Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (finding that a pro se
litigant abandoned an issue that was not raised in his initial brief as the court does
“not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant's reply brief”).
Additionally, to the extent these claims do not implicate jurisdiction or ineffective
assistance of counsel, they are procedurally defaulted because they could have been,
but were not, raised on appeal.
15

Regardless, the undersigned also finds Garcia’s new claims to be without merit,
for the following reasons:

15
The undersigned notes that Garcia’s reply raising these new claims was filed over
one year after his convictions became final. However, the undersigned assumes
without deciding that the new claims relate back to the timely claims in his § 2255
motion. See Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000
(“Davenport's claims in his original § 2255 motion were timely filed, but the new
claims in his amended § 2255 motion were not filed until November 6, 1997, and were
untimely. Therefore, Davenport's new claims are barred unless they ‘relate back’
under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 41 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

42
(6) The vessel was in the “fishery zone” of the Dominican Republic, yet there
was no evidence the Dominican Republic was contacted to establish
jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. §70502(c)(1)(E).

Garcia asserts that 50 nautical miles is within a 200 mile “fishery zone” and
that there was no evidence that the Dominican Republic was contacted. (Doc# 270,
PageID.2179-2180). However, § 70502(c)(1)(A)-(F) sets forth six alternative paths by
which the Government can establish a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.” Here, the yola was a determined to be a “vessel without nationality” under
§70502(c)(1)(A), and that determination was upheld on appeal. Thus, it was
unnecessary to determine whether the yola was also “a vessel in the territorial waters
of a foreign nation if the nation consents to the enforcement of United States law by
the United States” under § 70502(c)(1)(E), and any failure of counsel to address this
issue was harmless.
16

(7) Jury Instruction Number 4 (prohibiting jurors from visiting or viewing
premises or places involved in the case) violated the trial-by-jury
requirement of the Sixth Amendment.

Quite the opposite—unauthorized site visits by jurors are generally recognized
as violative of criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights. See Sherman v. Smith,

16
Garcia has not advanced or articulated an argument that application of the
MDLEA to vessels beyond the 12-mile territorial waters limit, yet in this 200-mile
“fishery zone,” exceeds congressional authority and is unconstitutional. Nonetheless,
under Eleventh Circuit precedent, stateless vessels apprehended beyond the 12-mile
boundary of territorial waters are considered to be in international waters and
subject to MDLEA jurisdiction. United States v. McPhee, 336 F. 3d 1269 (11th Cir.
2003). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that a
country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (beyond a nation’s territorial waters but within
200 miles of the coastal baseline) is part of the “high seas” for purposes of the Felonies
Clause. United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 821-823 (11th 2024). Accord
Martinez, 172 F.4th at 1312.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 42 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

43
89 F.3d 1134, 1137-40 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (finding that a juror’s authorized site
visit was not a structural trial error and instead holding that it was subject to
harmless error analysis); 2 F. Lee Bailey & Kenneth J. Fishman, Criminal Trial
Techniques § 53:11 (“A common violation of the rule against obtaining information
other than evidence given in open court is an unauthorized view of the scene of the
crime or of the weapon or instrument used in the commission of the offense. While a
juror's unauthorized visit to a location relevant to a case is not usually prejudicial per
se, it is a serious matter which requires an inquiry into whether an unauthorized
view actually occurred and the extent of the juror's activity at the scene.” (footnotes
omitted)). The Court did not err in giving this instruction, and counsel did not err in
failing to object to it.
(8) The Court’s limiting defendants’ counsel to cross-examining government
witnesses on jurisdictional evidence outside of the presence of the jury
caused extreme prejudice and violated Eleventh Circuit precedent.

As has been repeatedly noted, “jurisdiction of the United States with respect
to a vessel subject to t[he MDLEA] is not an element of an offense[, and] jurisdictional
issues arising under th[e MDLEA] are preliminary questions of law to be determined
solely by the trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a). The jury’s role at trial was to
determine whether the Government had proved each element of the charged offenses
beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence about a non-elemental issue, jurisdiction, was
simply not relevant to the jury’s deliberation, and indeed may have served to confuse
the issues and/or waste time. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 43 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

44
of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”). None of the
cases Garcia cites in support of this claim hold otherwise.
(9) The trial court’s grant of the government’s motion in limine to bar
defendants from introducing evidence about the conditions of
confinement on board the U.S. Coast Guard vessel was an abuse of
discretion.

This information was not clearly relevant to either the elements of any charged
offense, or to any known defense to those charges, see United States v. Machado, 886
F.3d 1070, 1085 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[A] district court may exclude defense-favoring
evidence where it ‘does not bear a logical relationship’ to an element of the offense or
affirmative defense, or where the relationship between the two is simply ‘too
attenuated.’ ... This Court has emphasized that ‘there comes a point—and a district
court is perhaps in the best position to judge this—when the chain of inferences
linking evidence and the legally relevant point to be proven is simply too long,
dubious, or attenuated to require that the evidence be introduced.’ ” (quoting United
States v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359, 1365-66 (11th Cir. 2004)); and any potential relevance
was likely substantially outweighed by the danger it could “mislead[] the jury” or
“confus[e] the issues...” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Moreover, even if a district court abuses
its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling, that ruling will be overturned “only if
it resulted in a substantial prejudicial effect.” Machado, 886 F.3d at 1085 n.14. Garcia
has failed to allege facts showing how the exclusion of evidence about his conditions
of confinement on the Coast Guard vessel substantially prejudiced him at trial.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 44 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

45
(10) His trial counsel failed to “stay abreast of,” and bring to Movant’s
attention, the 2018 amendments to the First Step Act extending safety
valve eligibility to cases brought under the MDLEA, which Movant
would have considered in evaluating whether to enter a plea or go to
trial.

“[T]he so-called safety-valve mechanism...operates in some circumstances to
provide a guidelines sentence even though a higher mandatory minimum sentence
would otherwise be required by statute.” United States v. Quirante, 486 F.3d 1273,
1273–74 (11th Cir. 2007). More specifically, the safety-valve mechanism states that
for certain offenses, “the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines
promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission...without regard to any
statutory minimum sentence” if it finds that certain conditions are met. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(f). Garcia is correct that § 3553(f) applies to offenses under “section 70503 or
70506 of title 46.” However, Garcia could not have benefitted from the safety-valve
mechanism in this case because the low end of his sentencing guideline range was
188 months’ imprisonment (see Doc# 158), which was still higher than the 10-year
statutory minimum imprisonment term each of Garcia’s convictions. See 46 U.S.C. §
70506(a)-(b); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1).
17
Thus, any failure by counsel to advise Garcia
about safety-valve eligibility was harmless.

17
Even Garcia’s preliminary guidelines calculations prepared early in the case
calculated the low end of his guideline sentence as 135 months’ imprisonment, still
above the 10-year minimum. (See Doc# 51).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 45 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

46
(11) The prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false
Google satellite photos showing a larger vessel than a yola.

Even accepting this claim as true, Garcia has failed to explain how he was
prejudiced by the introduction of these purported false photos—the size of the
involved vessel had nothing to do with either jurisdiction or any element of the case.
(12) “[T]he reading of the MDLEA as to Movant is ambiguous and violates
the Supremacy Clause.”

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads: “This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.” “It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision:
Courts ‘shall’ regard the ‘Constitution,’ and all laws ‘made in Pursuance thereof,’ as
‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ They must not give effect to state laws that conflict
with federal laws.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 324, 135
S. Ct. 1378, 191 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2015). Thus, the Supremacy Clause only places limits
on state law, and does not constrain federal laws such as the MDLEA. To the extent
Garcia argues the MDLEA “is ambiguous” as to him, he fails to develop this argument
or cite any authority in support. Accordingly, Garcia has also not shown that counsel
erred by failed to raise either of these issues.

Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 46 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

47
(13) Liberally construing his reply, Garcia seems to argue that the Coast
Guard’s involvement in his apprehension violated the Posse Comitatus
Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act states: “Whoever, except in cases and under
circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully
uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space
Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385. The Coast
Guard is conspicuously excluded from that statute. Moreover, the Coast Guard is
statutorily authorized to “make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches,
seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has
jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the
United States.” 14 U.S.C. § 522(a).
d. Motions “for Disposition on Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. S.
2255”

Subsequent to filing his reply, Garcia filed two motions entitled “Motion for
Disposition on Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.S. 2255” (Docs# 312, 321). In
both, Garcia argues for the first time that the Government lacked standing under
Article III of the Constitution to prosecute him for his crimes. In the second motion
(Doc# 321), he also moves for the recusal of the assigned District Judge, claiming that
the judge “[h]as acted with dileberate [sic] discriminatory Bias and Impropriety” by
not “expedit[ing]” a ruling on his § 2255 motion in the face of despite his claims of
multiple jurisdictional defects.
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 47 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

48
The undersigned construes the standing argument in these motions as an
additional § 2255 ground for relief.
18
However, the undersigned is not convinced that
Garcia’s standing claim has merit. Garcia cites no authority holding that the
Government is required to satisfy Article III standing in order to prosecute a crime,
and the weight of authority indicates the opposite. See Vermont Agency of Nat. Res.
v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771, 120 S. Ct. 1858, 146 L. Ed. 2d 836 (2000)
(“the injury to its sovereignty arising from violation of its laws...suffices to support a
criminal lawsuit by the Government” (dicta)); Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, Fla.,
996 F.3d 1110, 1125 (11th Cir. 2021) (Newsom, J., concurring) (“Of course, no one
doubts—or ever doubted—that federal criminal prosecutions are ‘Cases’ within the
meaning of Article III.”); F. Andrew Hessick & Sarah A. Benecky, Standing and
Criminal Law, 49 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 961, 975 (2024) (“[C]ourts do not require the United
States to satisfy [Article III] standing requirements in criminal cases. In their view,
criminal prosecutions seek to vindicate the ‘sovereign’ interests of the United States,
and the various requirements of standing do not apply when the United States files
an action to vindicate a sovereign interest.”).

18
The earlier motion, dated August 14, 2025 (Doc# 312, PageID.2482), is deemed filed
well over 3 years after Garcia’s convictions became final, and nothing in the record
indicates that Garcia is entitled to have the one-year statute of limitations for this
claim to run from any of the other triggering dates in § 2255(f). Nevertheless, the
undersigned assumes without deciding that this claim relates back to Garcia’s timely
jurisdictional claims. See Davenport, 217 F.3d at 1344 (“ ‘Relation back’ causes an
otherwise untimely claim to be considered timely by treating it as if it had been filed
when the timely claims were filed. Therefore, the new claims in Davenport's amended
§ 2255 motion will relate back and be considered timely if they ‘arose out of the
conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ set forth in his original § 2255 motion.”).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 48 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

49
As for his argument for recusal, Garcia has not shown that he was entitled to
expedited review of any of his jurisdictional claims, which as explained above were
either already rejected on appeal or were otherwise meritless. More generally, where,
as here, “the defendant’s chance to appeal has been waived or exhausted,...we are
entitled to presume he stands fairly and finally convicted, especially when, as here,
he already has had a fair opportunity to present his federal claims to a federal forum.”
United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 71 L. Ed. 2d 816 (1982).
Moreover, Garcia has failed to substantiate his claims that the delay in ruling on his
§ 2255 motion was the result of either “bias” or “impropriety.” See Christo v. Padgett,
223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (“To warrant recusal..., the moving party must
allege facts that would convince a reasonable person that bias actually exists.”). Mere
dissatisfaction with how a judge presides over a case is not enough. Cf. Hamm v.
Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Neither
a trial judge's comments on lack of evidence, rulings adverse to a party, nor friction
between the court and counsel constitute pervasive bias”).
Accordingly, Garcia’s “Motion[s] for Disposition on Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C.S. 2255” (Docs# 312, 321) are due to be DENIED to the extent they
request dismissal of his indictment and recusal of the assigned District Judge, and
are moot as to the request for disposition in light of this Report and Recommendation.
Garcia has not shown entitlement to relief on any of his claims. Accordingly,
his § 2255 motion is due to be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.

Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 49 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

50
e. Certificate of Appealability
“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant” in a § 2255 proceeding. Rule 11(a) of the
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. “Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from
the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of
arises out of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
Where the district court “has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits,
the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120
S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). Where habeas relief is denied on procedural
grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying constitutional claim(s), “a
COA should issue [only] when the prisoner shows . . . that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. See also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003) (“Under the controlling standard, a
petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” (citations omitted and punctuation modified)). In all cases, “[a] certificate of
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 50 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

51
appealability may issue ‘only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.’ ” Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th
Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). While “a COA does not require
a showing that the appeal will succeed[,]” a “prisoner seeking a COA must prove
something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on
his or her part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337-38 (quotations omitted).
Upon due consideration, the undersigned finds that Garcia should be DENIED
a certificate of appealability in conjunction with the dismissal of the present §2255
motion because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right for any of the grounds raised, and jurists of reason would not find
it debatable whether the Court is correct in finding those grounds meritless.
19

f. Appeal In Forma Pauperis
“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in
writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3).
20

19
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings further provides:
“Before entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments
on whether a certificate should issue.” If there is an objection to this recommendation
regarding the issuance of a certificate of appealability, the objecting party may bring
this argument to the attention of the district judge in the objections permitted to this
report and recommendation, see infra. Should the Court ultimately deny a certificate
of appealability as to some or all grounds for relief, the movant “may not appeal the
denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
for the United States District Courts.

20
A district court’s finding “that an appeal would not be in good faith because no
certificate of appealability had been issued ... is not enough to explain why the appeal
on the merits would not be in good faith, because the standard governing the issuance
of a certificate of appealability is not the same as the standard for determining
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 51 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

52
A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue
that is not frivolous when examined under an objective standard. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 921, 8 L. Ed.
2d 21 (1962). An issue is frivolous when it appears that “the legal
theories are indisputably meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393
(11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In other words, an IFP action is
frivolous, and thus not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable
merit either in law or in fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th
Cir. 2001). More specifically, “arguable means capable of being
convincingly argued.” Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir.
1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Nevertheless, where
a “claim is arguable, but ultimately will be unsuccessful,” it should be
allowed to proceed. Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512,
515 (11th Cir. 1991).

Ghee v. Retailers Nat. Bank, 271 F. App’x 858, 859-60 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)
(unpublished).
Having considered the issues raised as set forth above, the undersigned will
recommend the Court certify that any appeal by Garcia of the denial of the present §
2255 motion would be without merit and therefore not taken in good faith, thus
denying him entitlement to appeal in forma pauperis.
21

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
that Garcia’s “Motion[s] for Disposition on Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.S.
2255” (Docs# 312, 321) be found MOOT to the extent they request disposition of the

whether an appeal is in good faith. It is more demanding.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216
F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000).

21
Should the Court adopt this recommendation and deny leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, the movant may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24(a)(5).

Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 52 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

53
§ 2255 motion and be otherwise DENIED; that Garcia’s § 2255 motion dated April
26, 2023 (Doc# 248), be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice; that Garcia be
DENIED a Certificate of Appealability in relation to this dismissal; and that
judgment be accordingly set out by separate document under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.
22
The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the Court certify
that any appeal by Garcia of the denial of the present § 2255 motion would be without
merit and therefore not taken in good faith, thus denying him entitlement to appeal
in forma pauperis.
NOTICE OF THE RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything
in it must, within 14 days of the date of service of this document, file specific written
objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Rule 8(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts; S.D. Ala.
GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party
failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

22
See Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..., to the extent that they are
not inconsistent with any statutory provision or these rules, may be applied to a
proceeding under these rules.”); Sassoon v. United States, 549 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1977)
(applying Rule 58’s separate-document requirement in a § 2255 proceeding); United
States v. Hassebrock, 21 F.4th 494, 497 (7th Cir. 2021) (in holding that Rule 58
applied to coram nobis proceedings, nothing that “[m]any [other] circuits have applied
Rule 58 to § 2255 motions”).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 53 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

54
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for
objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a
proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary
in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must
identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the
basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that
merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge
is not specific.
NOTICE TO PRO SE § 2255 MOVANT
Movant is advised that “[a]ll persons proceeding pro se shall be bound by, and
must comply with, all Local Rules of this Court,” as well as the applicable federal
rules of procedure, “unless excused by Court order.” S.D. Ala. GenLR 83.5(a). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires that any paper filed with the Court be signed by
him personally and provide his “address, e-mail address, and telephone number.”
23

23
Movant must handwrite his/her signature/mark (as opposed to, for example, typing
his name) in order to satisfy Rule 11(a). See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 763–
64, 121 S. Ct. 1801, 149 L. Ed. 2d 983 (2001) (“Becker maintains that typing one's
name satisfies the signature requirement and that his original notice of appeal,
containing his name typed above “(Counsel of Record),” met Civil Rule 11(a)’s
instruction...[H]owever, we are not disposed to extend the meaning of the word
‘signed,’ as that word appears in Civil Rule 11(a), to permit typed names. As Rule
11(a) is now framed, we read the requirement of a signature to indicate, as a signature
requirement commonly does, and as it did in John Hancock's day, a name
handwritten (or a mark handplaced).”).
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 54 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>

55
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). See also Rule 12 of the Section 2255 Rules (“The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied
to a proceeding under these rules.”). “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless
the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's
attention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Movant is also advised that, under this Court’s local rules, “[a]ny person
proceeding pro se must, at all times during the pendency of the action to which he or
she is a party, keep the Clerk informed of his or her current address and ... must
promptly notify the Clerk of any change of address ... Failure to comply with this
Rule may result in sanction, including dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s action...” S.D.
Ala. GenLR 83.5(b). Additionally, any “request for Court action must be presented by
motion and may not be presented by informal means such as a letter.” S.D. Ala.
GenLR 7. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b).
DONE this the 22
nd
day of July 2026.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:19-cr-00033-JB-B Doc# 322 Filed 07/22/26 Page 55 of 55 PageID#
<pageID>