# United States v. Angelo Martinez

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11311378

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** April 16, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11311378

## Opinion text

USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 1 of 19

FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13361
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

ANGELO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20040-JEM-1
____________________
____________________
No. 22-13370
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 2 of 19

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

ERIC MANUEL SUERO TERRERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20040-JEM-2
____________________
____________________
No. 22-13507
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

JUSTO MATOS PENA,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20040-JEM-3
____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 3 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 3

This consolidated appeal arises from the prosecutions of An-
gelo Martinez, Eric Manuel Suero Terrero, and Justos Matos Pena
under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”). De-
fendants-Appellants argue that the MDLEA is unconstitutional un-
der the Felonies Clause, both on its face and as applied, and that
their prosecutions were invalid because their conduct lacked a
nexus to the United States. They acknowledge, however, that our
binding precedent, including the decision we issued in United States
v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2706
(2025), forecloses these arguments. So Defendants raise them to
preserve further review.
Suero Terrero also argues that recent amendments to the
Sentencing Guidelines, effective November 1, 2025, should apply to
his case retroactively. Applying our precedent, we conclude that
the amendments are substantive and not clarifying, so they do not
apply retroactively. And even if they did apply retroactively, they
would not change his sentence. Because Defendants’ constitu-
tional claims are foreclosed and the court made no reversible error,
we affirm in full.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about January 18, 2022, a U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Marine Patrol Aircraft detected Martinez, Suero Ter-
rero, and Matos Pena in a go-fast vessel about 158 nautical miles
southeast of Isla Beata, Dominican Republic. U.S. Coast Guard
ships diverted to investigate the area.
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 4 of 19

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

The Coast Guard also launched a helicopter to assist. The
helicopter’s crew spotted Defendants jettisoning packages, six of
which the Coast Guard later recovered.
As part of its investigation, the Coast Guard gained control
of the go-fast vessel. Once it did so, the Coast Guard Boarding
Team boarded the boat and found Defendants. Martinez identified
himself as the vessel’s master and claimed Colombian nationality
for the vessel.
Based on Martinez’s representation, the Coast Guard
reached out to the Colombian government. But Colombia said
that it could neither confirm nor deny the go-fast vessel’s registra-
tion. Onboard, the Coast Guard Boarding Team recovered about
375 kilograms of cocaine. The Team arrested Defendants and
transferred them to the Coast Guard ship.
Thirteen days after the seizure, on January 31, 2022, Defend-
ants were charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy to pos-
sess with intent to distribute cocaine while aboard a vessel subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of the MDLEA,
46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b).
On February 8, 2022, Defendants were charged by indict-
ment with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to dis-
tribute at least five kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 26
U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b), and one count of possessing with
intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine on board a
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 5 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 5

vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation
of 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1).
Defendants moved jointly to dismiss the indictment. As rel-
evant to this appeal, they brought two constitutional challenges to
the MDLEA, a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge.
First, Defendants argued that the MDLEA’s definition of
“stateless vessel” is unconstitutional because it applies to vessels
that do not qualify as stateless under customary international law.
And, Defendants continued, customary international law limits
Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause. So in Defendants’
view, the MDLEA violates the limitations that the Felonies Clause
imposes on Congress.
Second, they contended that the MDLEA was unconstitu-
tional as applied to them because they were arrested in the Exclu-
sive Economic Zone of the Dominican Republic. And, Defendants
asserted, that Zone is not part of the “High Seas” as customary in-
ternational law defines the term.
The district court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
indictment. It explained that Eleventh Circuit precedent supports
the constitutionality of the MDLEA under the protective principle
of international law. That principle, the court continued, “permits
a nation to assert jurisdiction over a person whose conduct outside
the nation’s territory threatens the nation’s security or could poten-
tially interfere with the operation of its governmental functions.”
The district court cited several of our cases that have af-
firmed this principle, including United States v. Gonzalez, 776 F.2d
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 6 of 19

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

931, 939 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 810
(11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th
Cir. 2003) (“Congress, under the ‘protective principle’ of interna-
tional law, may assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over vessels in the
high seas that are engaged in conduct that has a potentially adverse
effect and is generally recognized as a crime by nations that have
reasonably developed legal systems.’”) (citation modified).
After the district court denied Defendants’ motion to dis-
miss, they pled guilty.
The court held a sentencing hearing for Martinez and Matos
Pena together. The court granted downward variances for Matos
Pena and Suero Terrero. It sentenced Matos Pena to 144 months
of imprisonment as to each count, to be served concurrently, and
five years of supervised release. As for Suero Terrero, he said he
was hired as a deckhand and did not play a major role in the con-
spiracy. The court sentenced him to 96 months of imprisonment
and two years of supervised release. Finally, the court sentenced
Martinez, who was the master of the vessel, to 108 months of im-
prisonment and two years of supervised release.
Defendants each filed notices of appeal. We consolidated
the cases for review.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review a denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on
constitutional grounds de novo, but we review unpreserved claims
for plain error. Alfonso, 104 F.4th at 820.
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 7 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 7

We review the district court’s determination of a defend-
ant’s role in his offense for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez De
Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert denied, 528
U.S. 976 (1999). The district court has “considerable discretion” in
deciding the fact-intensive question of whether a defendant played
a minor role in the offense. United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274,
1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002). We will not disturb a district court’s sen-
tencing determination unless we are left with a “definite and firm
conviction that a mistake” was made. United States v. Cruickshank,
837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation modified).
III. ANALYSIS
As Defendants acknowledge, our precedent squarely fore-
closes their constitutional challenges to their indictments. We dis-
cuss each challenge in turn.
A. Congress’s Felonies Committed on the High Seas Clause power ex-
tends within foreign nations’ Exclusive Economic Zones.
Congress’s authority to enact the MDLEA derives from its
power under the Felonies Clause of the Constitution “[t]o define
and punish . . . Felonies committed on the [H]igh Seas.” U.S. Const.
art. I, § 8, cl. 10.
The MDLEA makes it a crime to “possess with intent to . . .
distribute, a controlled substance,” “[w]hile on board a covered ves-
sel,” or to conspire to do so. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a) and 70506(b). A
“covered vessel” includes “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.” Id. § 70503(e)(1). And a “vessel subject to the juris-
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 8 of 19

8 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

diction of the United States” includes a “vessel without national-
ity.” Id. § 70502(c)(1)(A). So we turn to the meaning of a “vessel
without nationality.” That term includes “a vessel aboard which
the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry and for
which the claimed nation of registry does not affirmatively and un-
equivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality.” Id. §
70502(d)(1)(C).
Here, then, the go-fast vessel Defendants used qualified as a
“vessel without nationality” under the MDLEA because Martinez
claimed Colombian registry, but Colombia did not confirm Mar-
tinez’s claim. And that is so even though the Coast Guard encoun-
tered their vessel in the Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”) of the
Dominican Republic. The EEZ lies “just beyond a nation’s territo-
rial waters but within 200 miles of the coastal baseline.” Alfonso,
104 F.4th at 821.
Defendants argue that the Felonies Clause does not allow
Congress to enact legislation that reaches into another country’s
EEZ because, they say, another country’s EEZ is not part of the
high seas for purposes of the Felonies Clause. Rather, Defendants
assert, customary international law defines “High Seas.” For this
proposition, Defendants cite United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700
F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2012).
But Bellaizac-Hurtado doesn’t help Defendants. The defend-
ants in Bellaizac-Hurtado were apprehended in the territorial waters
(not the EEZ) of another country. And they challenged their pros-
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 9 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 9

ecution under the Offences Clause. We held that “customary in-
ternational law” limits Congress’s power to define and punish con-
duct under the Offences Clause. See 700 F.3d at 1249. And because
drug trafficking, like most kinds of private criminal activity, is not
a violation of international law, see id. at 1254, the Offences Clause
does not authorize Congress to prosecute drug trafficking in the
territorial waters of other nations, see id. at 1258.
But we expressly distinguished between drug trafficking that
occurs on the high seas and drug trafficking that occurs in another
nation’s territorial waters. We explained that “Congress possesses
additional constitutional authority to restrict conduct on the high
seas” under various other parts of the Constitution, including the
Felonies Clause, and “we have always upheld extraterritorial con-
victions under our drug trafficking laws as an exercise of power
under the Felonies Clause.” Id. at 1257.
Despite our caveat, Defendants seek to expand our holding
in Bellaizac-Hurtado to attack the constitutionality of MDLEA pros-
ecutions on the high seas. But we have squarely rejected this very
challenge before.
In Alfonso, we ruled that a nation’s EEZ is “part of the ‘high
seas’ for purposes of the Felonies Clause in Article I of the Consti-
tution,” so “enforcement of the MDLEA in EEZs is proper.” 104
F.4th at 823, 827. We also explained that “international law does
not limit the Felonies Clause.” Id. at 826. We concluded that the
district court appropriately denied the defendants’ motion to dis-
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 10 of 19

10 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

miss the indictment. Id. at 827; see also United States v. Canario-Vi-
lomar, 128 F.4th 1374, 1382 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 269
(2025) (same).
Alfonso binds us. See In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th
Cir. 2015) (“[U]nder this Court’s prior-panel-precedent rule, ‘a prior
panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until
it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Su-
preme Court or by this court sitting en banc.’”) (citation modified).
So we affirm the ruling of the district court here that Defendants’
prosecution under the MDLEA as applied to them is constitutional
because a nation’s EEZ is part of the high seas for purposes of the
Felonies Clause.
B. International law does not limit Congress’s power to assert juris-
diction over high-seas drug trafficking on vessels whose claimed na-
tion of registry does not confirm the claim.
Binding precedent also forecloses Defendants’ second con-
stitutional challenge to their prosecutions.
Defendants assert that the MDLEA is unconstitutional on its
face, because its definition of a stateless vessel as subject to the ju-
risdiction of the United States violates an international law limit on
Congress’s powers under the Felonies Clause. We disagree.
To be sure, under international law, as multilateral interna-
tional treaties that the United States has entered define it, vessels
on the high seas are typically subject to the criminal jurisdiction of
only their nation of registry. See United States v. Marino-Garcia, 679
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 11 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 11

F.2d 1373, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982) (“[I]nternational law generally pro-
hibits any country from asserting jurisdiction over foreign vessels
on the high seas.”). But “[s]tateless vessels . . . are ‘international
pariahs’ that have ‘no internationally recognized right to navigate
freely on the high seas.’” Campbell, 743 F.3d at 810 (quoting Marino-
Garcia, 679 F.2d at 1382). And “we have long upheld the authority
of Congress to ‘extend[ ] the criminal jurisdiction of this country
to any stateless vessel in international waters engaged in the distri-
bution of controlled substances.’” Id. (quoting Marino-Garcia, 679
F.2d at 1383).
Here, as we’ve explained, the go-fast vessel in which Defend-
ants were traveling qualified as a “a vessel without nationality” be-
cause Colombia—which Martinez, the master of the vessel, named
as the boat’s country of registry—declined to confirm that the ves-
sel was registered with it. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C).
Defendants argue the failure of Colombia’s government to
confirm the vessel’s registration does not make the vessel stateless
under international law. But our precedent holds that it does.
We squarely affirmed the constitutionality of this MDLEA
provision in Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th at 1381. There, we held “the
MDLEA was a constitutional exercise of Congressional authority
under the Felonies Clause. . . It follows that international law can-
not limit Congress’s authority to define ‘stateless vessel’ for pur-
poses of the MDLEA.” Id. (citation modified).
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 12 of 19

12 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

So once again, our prior-panel precedent forecloses Defend-
ants’ claim. See In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d at 794. And we affirm the
district court’s ruling denying this constitutional challenge.
C. Congress’s constitutional authority over stateless vessels on the
high seas does not require a nexus with the United States.
For the first time on appeal, Defendants argue that prosecut-
ing them for crimes that have no nexus to the United States violates
due process. But we have long held that “an issue not raised in the
district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be
considered by this court.” Walker v. Jones, 10 F.3d 1569, 1572 (11th
Cir. 1994) (citation modified).
And in any case, we have repeatedly rejected the argument
“that Congress exceeded its authority under the Felonies Clause
because [an MDLEA defendant’s] conduct lacked any nexus to the
United States.” Alfonso, 104 F.4th at 826 (citing Campbell, 743 F.3d
at 809–10). As we’ve explained, “the MDLEA is a valid exercise of
Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause as applied to drug traf-
ficking crimes without a ‘nexus’ to the United States.” United States
v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 587 (11th Cir 2020). We affirmed
these principles again in Canario-Vilomar, where we held that chal-
lenges to the lack of a nexus requirement are “squarely foreclosed
by our binding precedent.” Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th at 1383.
Plus, we agree with the government that drug trafficking on
the high seas has a nexus with the United States. Congress has
found that “trafficking in controlled substances aboard vessels is a
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 13 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 13

serious international problem, is universally condemned, and pre-
sents a specific threat to the security and societal well-being of the
United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70501.
For these reasons, we affirm the ruling of the district court
rejecting Defendants’ due-process challenge to their prosecutions
as lacking a nexus to the United States.
D. The district court did not clearly err in determining that Suero Ter-
rero was not entitled to a minor-role reduction as a mariner trans-
porting more than 300 kilograms of cocaine.
Suero Terrero argues that the district court clearly erred in
denying him a minor-participant reduction. We are not persuaded.
Whether a defendant qualifies for a minor-participant reduc-
tion under the Guidelines presents a finding of fact that we review
for clear error only. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d at 934. “Clear
error review is deferential.” Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1192. “The dis-
trict court’s ‘choice between two permissible views of the evi-
dence’ as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely constitute
clear error ‘[s]o long as the basis of the trial court’s decision is sup-
ported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a rule
of law.’” Id. (quoting Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d at 945).
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant is entitled to
a two-level decrease in his offense level if he was a minor partici-
pant in the criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) (2025). A mi-
nor-participant role reduction applies to a defendant who is “sub-
stantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 14 of 19

14 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

activity” and less culpable than most other participants in the crim-
inal activity “but whose role could not be described as mini-
mal.” Id. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A), 5.
The defendant bears the burden of establishing by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that he qualifies for a minor-role reduc-
tion. United States v. Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir.
2006).
In determining whether to grant a minor-role reduction, a
court must apply the analysis set forth in Rodriguez De Varon, 175
F.3d at 940–48 (the “De Varon factors”). There, we explained that
(1) “the district court must measure the defendant’s role against the
relevant conduct for which [he] has been held accountable,” id. at
940; and (2) “the district court may also measure the defendant’s
culpability in comparison to that of other participants in the rele-
vant conduct.” Id. at 944.
On the first prong, a district court must assess all the facts
probative of the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for which
he is being held accountable. Id. at 941. A defendant must establish
that his role was minor as compared to the conduct specifically at-
tributed to him. Id.
The second prong directs its focus to the conduct of the
other identified participants in the relevant conduct, in comparison
to the conduct for which the defendant is being held accountable.
See United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 980 (11th Cir. 2015). We’ve
explained that “the district court should look at other participants
only to the extent that they (1) are identifiable or discernable from
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 15 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 15

the evidence, and (2) were involved in the relevant conduct at-
tributed to the defendant.” Id. So “[t]he conduct of participants in
any larger criminal conspiracy is irrelevant.” Id. (citation modi-
fied). When we consider a defendant’s conduct in comparison to
the conduct of other participants, “a defendant is not automatically
entitled to a minor role adjustment merely because [he] was some-
what less culpable than the other discernable participants.” Rodri-
guez De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944. Indeed, we’ve recognized that “[t]he
fact that a defendant’s role may be less than that of other partici-
pants engaged in the relevant conduct may not be dispositive of
role in the offense, since it is possible that none are minor or mini-
mal participants.” Id.
Our review of the record here does not reflect that the dis-
trict court clearly erred in finding Suero Terrero was not entitled to
a minor-role adjustment. The district court explained that it had
reviewed Suero Terrero’s sentencing objections, which sought a
minor-role adjustment. And during Suero Terrero’s sentencing,
the court listened while Suero Terrero’s counsel detailed Suero Ter-
rero’s involvement in the conspiracy in relation to others, including
in relation to four other alleged co-conspirators besides his co-de-
fendants. So the record shows that the district court was aware of
and considered Suero Terrero’s minor-role argument.
Indeed, the court expressed “a lot of sympathy” for Suero
Terrero. Still, it concluded that Suero Terrero had not “really
shown [the court] that he’s entitled to a minor role. He is charged
with a specific set of facts and a specific involvement in a specific
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 16 of 19

16 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

conspiracy, and in that conspiracy he’s not a minor participant.”
Even so, though, the court imposed a 96-month sentence, 12
months below the low end of the guideline range and the lowest
sentence of the three co-defendants.
On this record, we cannot say that the district court’s rejec-
tion of a minor-role adjustment was clearly erroneous. Suero Ter-
rero’s sentence considered his actual conduct of transporting
nearly half a ton of cocaine along an international trafficking
route. The amount of drugs involved in a drug-trafficking offense
is “a material consideration in assessing a defendant’s role in [his]
relevant conduct.” Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d at 943. So the first
De Varon factor—Suero Terrero’s sentence in comparison to the
conduct for which he is being held accountable—supports affir-
mance here.
The second De Varon factor, the defendant’s conduct in com-
parison to that of the other participants in the relevant conduct,
also supports affirmance here. Suero Terrero was one of three par-
ticipants involved in trafficking a large amount of drugs in interna-
tional waters. True, he may have been the “least culpable.” Id. at
944. But we’ve explained that fact does not make him “automati-
cally entitled to a minor role adjustment.” Id. Suero Terrero may
not have understood the full scope of the conspiracy or exerted de-
cision-making power, but nothing in the record suggests that Suero
Terrero lacked understanding of the nature of his conduct in traf-
ficking the drugs.
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 17 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 17

The district court also appropriately adjusted Suero Ter-
rero’s sentence relative to the other participants in the conduct.
The court gave Suero Terrero the lowest sentence of the
three defendants, twelve months below Martinez’s sentence. So
even though he did not get a minor-participant reduction, his sen-
tence appropriately reflects his role in the conduct relative to other
participants in the relevant conduct. Thus, the second De Varon fac-
tor also counsels affirmance.
We are aware that while this case has been pending on ap-
peal, amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines became effective—
including Amendment 833, which affects minor-role determina-
tion in drug-trafficking cases. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 833 (eff.
Nov. 1, 2025). The guideline inserted new language into U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(e)(2)(B) expanding the circumstances under which courts
should apply the minor-participant reduction under § 3B1.2. The
new instruction states that the minor-participant reduction is “gen-
erally warranted” for defendants whose primary function is a low-
level trafficking role, like a courier, lookout, small-scale distributor.
See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B).
But generally, in reviewing a district court’s application of
the Sentencing Guidelines, we apply the version of the Guidelines
in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing. See United States
v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 2011). We will consider
new amendments on appeal only if they are “clarifying” rather
than “substantive.” Id. at 1184–85. Jerchower directs us to evaluate
several factors to determine whether guidelines are clarifying or
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 18 of 19

18 Opinion of the Court 22-13361

substantive: (1) whether the amendment alters the text of the
Guidelines or alters only the commentary; (2) whether the Com-
mission has described an amendment as clarifying or whether its
statements in the amendment commentary reflect a substantive
change; (3) whether the Commission has included the amendment
in the list of retroactive amendments in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c); and
(4) whether the amendment overturns circuit precedent, which
could suggest a substantive change, or whether it clarifies a mean-
ing inherent in the original guideline. Id. at 1185.
After considering these factors, we conclude that Amend-
ment 833 is substantive. First, it directly alters the text of the
Guidelines rather than merely adding commentary. Second, the
amendment commentary reflects a substantive change. It explains,
for instance, that “[t]he amendment expands the circumstances in
which an adjustment under § 3B1.2 is warranted in § 2D1.1 cases.”
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 833. And the amendment makes the mi-
nor- and minimal-participant adjustments applicable in drug-traf-
ficking cases, even if the offense did not involve other participants
besides the defendant and even if the defendant was not substan-
tially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal ac-
tivity. See id. Third, the Sentencing Commission did not list
Amendment 833 as a retroactive amendment in U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(c). Fourth, to the extent that the amendment makes the
involvement of other participants irrelevant to whether a defend-
ant can receive a role decrease, it abrogates our Circuit precedent,
which tells us to consider the defendant’s role relative to other par-
ticipants in his relevant conduct.
USCA11 Case: 22-13361 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 19 of 19

22-13361 Opinion of the Court 19

Because Amendment 833 is substantive, it is not retroac-
tively applicable. So we do not consider it in our analysis.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons we’ve explained above, we affirm the district
court’s ruling in all respects.
AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11311378. Public record. Not legal advice.