United States v. De La Cruz, 998 F.3d 508

In Dec. 2017 the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a vessel north of Puerto Rico and seized ~1,325 kg of cocaine; Ángel De la Cruz and two crewmembers were arrested and brought to Puerto Rico.
De la Cruz was indicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503, 70506, and related importation counts; MDLEA offenses carried a 10-year mandatory minimum.
De la Cruz pleaded guilty to all counts and sought "safety valve" relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to avoid the statutory minimum; the government opposed, arguing MDLEA was not covered by § 3553(f).
The district court ruled § 3553(f) did not apply to MDLEA offenses, denied safety-valve relief (and denied a minor-role reduction), and imposed concurrent 10-year sentences.
De la Cruz appealed; the First Circuit reviewed de novo whether the then-applicable § 3553(f) applied to MDLEA offenses and affirmed the district court.
The court noted that Congress later (First Step Act, 2018) amended § 3553(f) to include MDLEA offenses prospectively, but that amendment did not apply retroactively to De la Cruz.

Issue	De la Cruz's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the § 3553(f) "safety valve" applied to MDLEA offenses	MDLEA offenses are "offenses under" 21 U.S.C. § 960 because § 70506 punishes MDLEA violations "as provided in § 960," so § 3553(f) (which lists § 960) covers MDLEA	§ 3553(f) applies only to offenses expressly listed; MDLEA is not among them and incorporation of § 960's penalty does not make MDLEA an "offense under" § 960	Safety valve did not apply to MDLEA under the then‑controlling text and structure; affirmed
Whether denial of minor-role reduction was erroneous	De la Cruz sought a minor-role reduction under the Guidelines	Government opposed the reduction	District court denied minor-role reduction; on appeal the issue is moot if safety-valve denial stands; overall sentence affirmed

United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2018) (safety valve does not apply to MDLEA under plain text)
United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz, 679 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2012) (same)
United States v. Gamboa-Cardenas, 508 F.3d 491 (9th Cir. 2007) (same)
United States v. Mosquera-Murillo, 902 F.3d 285 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (held MDLEA eligible for safety valve based on § 960 incorporation)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (distinguishing elements from affirmative defenses)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements)
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) (sentencing factors distinct from offense elements under prevailing pre‑Apprendi/McMillan regime)
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) (textualist approach to statutory interpretation)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (disparate inclusion in same Act implies deliberate choice)