No. 19-8889

Hector Guagua-Alarcon v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-07-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: article-iii article-three due-process executive-branch executive-power federal-jurisdiction maritime-drug-law maritime-drug-law-enforcement-act sixth-amendment subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-11-06
Related Cases: 19-8910 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the MDLEA violate Article III and the Sixth Amendment by giving dispositive weight to the Executive Branch's assertion that jurisdiction exists?

Question Presented (from Petition)

Questions Presented L The parties to a case cannot manufacture federal subject-matter jurisdiction by stipulation. Nonetheless, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. § 70501 et seq., purports to give the Executive Branch the power to “conclusively” determine that federal jurisdiction exists based on assumed, rather than established, facts. Does the MDLEA violate Article III and the Sixth Amendment by giving dispositive weight to the Executive Branch’s assertion that jurisdiction exists? Il. The government argued to the jury, over objection, that the defendants’ silence at arrest was evidence of their guilt. The circuit courts are divided over whether the Fifth Amendment bars the government from relying on a defendant’s custodial silence, but they do not consider this Court’s evidentiary holding barring such silence from federal trials. Did the Eleventh Circuit err in allowing evidence of custodial silence? III. Rather than applying this Court’s precedents, the Eleventh Circuit held that its “prior panel rule” precluded it from reaching appellant’s arguments. Unlike the Seventh Circuit, which follows stare decisis, the Eleventh Circuit deems its panel decisions unassailable, even by arguments never before considered. Does Article III give federal judges the power to decree that panel decisions are binding and preclusive? IV. This Court has held that it is “patently unconstitutional” to impose a longer prison sentence on a defendant solely because he exercised his trial right. The district court denied a downward variance solely because the accused refused to plead guilty. Did the sentence violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? ii Interested Parties These parties were co-defendants in Hector Guagua-Alarcon’s prosecution: Adalberto Palacios-Solis Trinity Cabezas-Montano Related Procedings Pending before this Court is co-defendant Adalberto Palacios-Solis’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review the same Eleventh Circuit opinion for which certiorari is sought through this Petition. See Palacios-Solis v. United States, No. 19-1195 (March 31, 2020). iii

Docket Entries

2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-19
Reply of petitioner Hector Guagua-Alarcon filed. (Distributed)
2020-10-05
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-08-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 5, 2020.
2020-08-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 2, 2020 to October 5, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-07-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 2, 2020.
2020-07-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 3, 2020 to September 2, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-06-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 3, 2020)

Attorneys

Hector Guagua-Alarcon
Ricardo J. BascuasUniversity of Miami School of Law, Petitioner
Ricardo J. BascuasUniversity of Miami School of Law, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent