context: The Third Circuit has rejected the proposition that nexus is required without expressly distinguishing between stateless and foreign vessels.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 993 F.2d 1052, 1056
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel); see also United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 281 F.3d 400, 403
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel); see also United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 403 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that Martinez-Hidalgo had expressly rejected our approach and holding that it was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert jurisdiction when the flag nation consents to application of the MDLEA).