United States v. Ade Lawrence
2013 WL 4436326, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17382, 727 F.3d 386 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute prohibiting U.S. citizens from possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute on any aircraft, 21 U.S.C. § 959(b), applies extraterritorially to conduct on flights between foreign nations. This application is a constitutional exercise of congressional power, justified under international law by the nationality and protective principles, especially when aspects of the conspiracy occur within the United States.
Facts:
- From late 2009 to July 2010, Ade Lawrence, a non-U.S. citizen residing in Houston, Texas, organized a drug smuggling operation.
- Lawrence recruited several U.S. citizens, including Felicia Parker, to act as couriers.
- While in the U.S., Lawrence hired the couriers, organized and paid for their flights, and provided instructions to facilitate the operation.
- The couriers traveled from Houston to South American countries like Brazil to acquire cocaine.
- Couriers, including Parker, then transported the cocaine on commercial airplanes from South America to the United Kingdom for distribution, often transiting through other European cities.
- The flights carrying the cocaine between South America and the United Kingdom did not travel to or from the United States.
- One courier, Sherree Lawrence, was arrested in Brazil, and another, Monica Mitchell, was arrested in Panama, both with large quantities of cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Felicia Parker and Ade Lawrence with conspiracy to possess cocaine aboard an aircraft with intent to distribute.
- Parker and Lawrence moved to dismiss the indictment in the U.S. District Court, arguing the statute did not apply to their conduct outside the United States.
- The district court denied the motions to dismiss.
- Following a five-day trial, a jury convicted both Parker and Lawrence.
- The district court sentenced Lawrence to 235 months and Parker to 60 months of imprisonment.
- Lawrence and Parker (Appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 21 U.S.C. § 959(b), which criminalizes possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute by a U.S. citizen on board any aircraft, apply extraterritorially to a conspiracy involving drug transport between two foreign countries?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemelle, District Judge
Yes, 21 U.S.C. § 959(b) applies extraterritorially. The court found clear congressional intent for the statute to apply outside the United States based on its plain language, structure, and legislative history. The phrase 'any United States citizen on board any aircraft' suggests broad application, and limiting the statute to domestic flights would render it redundant with other laws. The presumption against extraterritoriality is overcome because international drug trafficking is a crime that the U.S. government has a right to defend itself against, especially when committed by its own citizens. Furthermore, this extraterritorial application is permissible under international law. Jurisdiction over Parker, a U.S. citizen, is proper under the nationality principle, which allows a nation to regulate the conduct of its citizens abroad. Jurisdiction over Lawrence, a non-citizen, is justified under the protective principle, as international drug trafficking threatens U.S. security, and Lawrence orchestrated significant parts of the conspiracy from within the United States, satisfying due process requirements of a sufficient nexus to the U.S.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the extraterritorial reach of U.S. drug trafficking laws, even when the prohibited conduct occurs entirely between foreign nations and the drugs are not destined for the U.S. It affirms that the nationality principle provides a powerful basis for jurisdiction over U.S. citizens' criminal acts abroad. The case also reinforces the use of the protective principle, allowing prosecution of non-citizens whose foreign crimes are deemed a threat to U.S. national interests, particularly when the criminal scheme has a substantial connection to U.S. territory.
