This consolidated appeal involves three defendants—Angelo Martinez, Eric Manuel Suero Terrero, and Justo Matos Pena—who were prosecuted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). In January 2022, U.S. Coast Guard forces intercepted a go-fast vessel approximately 158 nautical miles southeast of the Dominican Republic in its Exclusive Economic Zone. The defendants were found transporting 375 kilograms of cocaine. Martinez claimed the vessel was Colombian, but Colombia declined to confirm the registration, rendering the vessel 'stateless' under the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the MDLEA was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's power under the Felonies Clause by reaching into foreign Exclusive Economic Zones and by defining stateless vessels in a way that violated customary international law. They also argued that the prosecutions lacked a sufficient nexus to the United States. Additionally, Suero Terrero challenged his sentence, arguing he deserved a minor-participant reduction and that recent Sentencing Guidelines amendments should apply retroactively to lower his sentence.
The court addressed the constitutional challenges first, noting that the defendants acknowledged their arguments were foreclosed by binding precedent, specifically United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024). The court reaffirmed that a nation's Exclusive Economic Zone constitutes part of the 'high seas' for purposes of the Felonies Clause, allowing Congress to enforce the MDLEA in those waters. The court rejected the argument that customary international law limits the Felonies Clause, citing Alfonso and United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025), which established that international law does not restrict Congress's authority to define 'vessel without nationality' under the MDLEA. The court also dismissed the due process challenge regarding the lack of a U.S. nexus, stating that drug trafficking on the high seas presents a specific threat to U.S. security and that precedent squarely forecloses the requirement of a nexus. Regarding the sentencing, the court reviewed Suero Terrero's claim for a minor-participant reduction under the De Varon factors. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that Suero Terrero was not a minor participant given the large quantity of drugs involved. Finally, the court analyzed whether Amendment 833 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which expanded the circumstances for minor-participant reductions, applied retroactively. Applying the standard from United States v. Jerchower, the court concluded the amendment was substantive because it altered the text of the Guidelines, expanded the scope of adjustments, was not listed as retroactive by the Commission, and abrogated circuit precedent regarding the role of other participants. Therefore, the amendment did not apply.
The district court judgments remain in full force with no modification to the defendants' convictions or penalties. The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's stance that the MDLEA applies broadly to stateless vessels in foreign Exclusive Economic Zones without requiring a specific nexus to the United States. It also clarifies that recent Sentencing Guidelines amendments expanding minor-participant reductions are substantive and will not apply retroactively to cases already sentenced, preserving the sentences imposed by the district courts.