United States v. Angelo Martinez

── United States v. Angelo Martinez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: NEW 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.