USA v. Waldir Forbes-Suarez, No. 13-10711 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10711 Date Filed: 01/27/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10711 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00486-SCB-EAJ-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WALDIR FORBES-SUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (January 27, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Waldir Forbes-Suarez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He Case: 13-10711 Date Filed: 01/27/2014 Page: 2 of 2 contends that the district court plainly erred by failing to dismiss his indictment because the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ( MDLEA ) is unconstitutional as applied to his conduct. He points to United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012); then, he argues that the phrase through international waters set forth in his plea agreement does not mean (and thus does not admit) that his boats actually left territorial waters. Forbes-Suarez waived the right to raise his present challenge to his conviction by entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Yunis, 723 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1984). In addition, no decision of this Court or the Supreme Court supports Forbes-Suarez s contention that his admitting the vessels in his conspiracy used international waters fails to include inherently a concession that the vessels went outside of territorial waters. In a case like this one, international waters has a customary meaning and is not ambiguous. For MDLEA proceedings, territorial waters international waters, at least in the absence of binding precedent saying something else. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error by failing to dismiss his indictment sua sponte. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
