Is the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) unconstitutional because no minimum contacts between the accused and the United States are required to establish jurisdiction and the MDLEA procedures, which preclude the jury's consideration of, and limit the accused's right to contest, jurisdiction over a purported 'stateless vessel,' violate the accused's fundamental due process and confrontation rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“(MDLEA”) unconstitutional because no minimum contacts between the accused and the United States are required to establish jurisdiction and the MDLEA procedures, which preclude the jury’s consideration of, and limit the accused’s right to contest, jurisdiction over a purported “stateless vessel,” violate the accused’s fundamental due process and confrontation rights? 2. Does denial of eligibility for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to defendants sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b) for high seas drug offenses result in irrationally severe punishment, particularly in light of the First Step Act amendments which suggest that any ambiguity relied on by some circuits to bar safety valve relief was likely misinterpreted? i INTERESTED PARTIES The parties interested in the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the appellate decision are the following co-petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari: Luis Felipe Valencia Henry Vazquez Valois ii