MDLEA Stateless-Vessel Prosecutions: Constitutional Challenges Foreclosed; Drug-Weight Findings May Rest on Agency Gross-Weight Reports; Minor-Role Reductions Properly Denied for Large-Quantity High-Seas Couriers

A. Precedents Cited

1. Standards of review and sentencing factfinding

• United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018, 1046 (11th Cir. 2015): Cited for the government’s burden to prove drug quantity by a preponderance and the rule that estimates are permissible but cannot be “merely speculative.” This frame mattered because Hidalgo-Pernalete attacked the reliability of the weight calculation rather than offering contrary proof.
• United States v. Tigua, 963 F.3d 1138, 1141 (11th Cir. 2020): Cited for clear-error review of factual findings concerning role adjustments—reinforcing deference to district court judgments on minor-role eligibility.
• United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2016): Cited for abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness and the “clear error of judgment” formulation.
• United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948): Supplies the classic clear-error definition (“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”), which the panel used to underscore how difficult it is to overturn drug-quantity findings.
• United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1269 (11th Cir. 2010): Used to place the burden on the defendant to show sentencing information is “materially false or unreliable,” not merely questionable. This case was pivotal to the panel’s rejection of Hidalgo-Pernalete’s “the report doesn’t explain the weighing” critique.

2. MDLEA constitutionality and nexus arguments

• United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 823 (11th Cir. 2024): Forecloses the argument that the MDLEA exceeds Congress’s Felonies Clause authority, which the defendants attempted to relitigate.
• United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 810, 812 (11th Cir. 2014): Rejects the claim that a U.S. nexus is constitutionally required; relied on here to deny Sumoza-Padron’s “no proven nexus” argument under the Felonies and Due Process Clauses.
• United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374, 1382-83 (11th Cir. 2025): Reaffirms Campbell’s nexus holding, strengthening the panel’s statement that precedent squarely controls.

3. Minor-role doctrine in the Eleventh Circuit

• United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 945 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc): The foundational framework: (1) compare the defendant’s role against the relevant conduct used at sentencing; (2) optionally compare against discernable participants in that relevant conduct. The panel treated De Varon’s “relevant conduct” focus as the decisive constraint against comparing defendants to unknown organizers.
• United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 608 (11th Cir. 2020): Reinforces that district courts are not required to consider unknown conspirators’ culpability and may focus on identifiable/ discernable participants. This directly countered Sumoza-Padron’s request to compare himself to “bosses, planners, and financiers” absent evidence identifying them.
• United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2016): Clarifies that drug quantity alone cannot categorically preclude a minor-role reduction. The panel used Cruickshank to show the district court did not rely solely on quantity; it also relied on the responsibility entrusted to the crew and the nature of the voyage.

4. Substantive reasonableness guideposts

• United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018): Provides the expectation that within-guidelines sentences are ordinarily reasonable and that only “rare” sentences are substantively unreasonable—supporting affirmance of the low-end 135-month sentence.
• United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014): Treats a sentence well below the statutory maximum as an indicator of reasonableness, which the panel emphasized given the life maximum.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Constitutional challenges: precedent as dispositive

The panel’s constitutional analysis is short because it is precedent-driven. Under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior decisions, the MDLEA’s application to stateless vessels on the high seas is within Congress’s Felonies Clause power and does not require proof of a U.S. nexus. The court therefore treated the defendants’ arguments as preserved but conclusively resolved by United States v. Alfonso, United States v. Campbell, and United States v. Canario-Vilomar.

2. Drug quantity: reasonable inference from agency records

Hidalgo-Pernalete sought a finding that the cocaine “would be less than 450 kilograms,” aiming to avoid the Guidelines’ 450-kilogram threshold in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). The record contained a “Report of Drug Property Collected, Purchased, or Seized” indicating an approximate gross quantity of 614 kilograms transferred for lab processing.

The panel held it was not clearly erroneous to attribute at least 450 kilograms because:

• Even if the 614 kilograms reflected gross weight including packaging, the margin above 450 kilograms (more than 150 kilograms) permitted a common-sense inference that net weight would still exceed 450 kilograms.
• The district court was permitted to consider the report without formal admission under evidentiary rules at sentencing (citing U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)).
• The prosecutor represented that she asked the agency to weigh the drugs, supporting the report’s reliability and rebutting speculation that the weight was guessed.
• Under United States v. Ghertler, Hidalgo-Pernalete bore the burden to show the information was materially false or unreliable; raising unanswered questions was not enough without contrary evidence.

3. Minor-role reductions: relevant conduct and discernable participants

Sumoza-Padron and Rizzo-Zabala argued they were low-level couriers and deserved U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) reductions. The panel applied United States v. Rodriguez De Varon to define the appropriate comparison set: the defendants’ roles are measured primarily against the relevant conduct for which they were held accountable—here, the charged conspiracy to transport the cocaine on the vessel.

The panel approved the district court’s reasoning that, given the scale (at least 450 kilograms) and nature (transport “across hundreds of miles of empty ocean”), none of the three crew members qualified as a minor participant relative to the relevant conduct and the other discernable participants (the co-defendants). Importantly, the panel rejected invitations to compare the crew to unknown “bosses” and “financiers” absent evidence identifying them, relying on United States v. Cabezas-Montano.

Addressing the risk of an impermissible “quantity-only” rationale, the panel distinguished United States v. Cruickshank: the district court did not deny the reduction solely because of drug quantity; it viewed quantity as evidence of entrusted responsibility and seriousness of the particular transportation mission. The panel also reiterated De Varon’s observation that some conspiracies may have no minor participants.

4. Substantive reasonableness: within-range, low-end, and deterrence

For Sumoza-Padron’s variance request (poverty, desperation, first-time offender, foreign national), the panel held the district court acted within its discretion in weighing the seriousness of trafficking enormous quantities of cocaine and the need for deterrence. The 135-month sentence was: (i) at the low end of the guideline range (135–168 months), (ii) consistent with the co-defendants’ sentences, and (iii) far below the statutory maximum of life (46 U.S.C. § 70506; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii)). Under United States v. Dixon and United States v. Dougherty, those features supported reasonableness.

C. Impact

• MDLEA litigation: The decision further entrenches the Eleventh Circuit’s approach that MDLEA constitutional and “no nexus” challenges are effectively closed in this circuit absent intervening Supreme Court or en banc authority.
• Drug-weight proof at sentencing: The opinion signals that agency custody/transfer records stating approximate gross quantities can be sufficient—especially where the margin above a key threshold is large—unless the defense produces concrete evidence undermining reliability.
• Minor-role reductions for maritime couriers: The reasoning reinforces the De Varon/Cabezas-Montano line: courts may deny reductions when the relevant conduct is limited to the boatload and the only discernable participants are the crew, particularly when the mission involves very large quantities and substantial entrusted responsibility.
• Variance arguments grounded in hardship: The decision illustrates continued deference to district courts that prioritize general deterrence and offense magnitude in high-seas trafficking cases, even where defendants present compelling personal circumstances.