United States v. Sarmiento-Palacios, 885 F.3d 1

In Aug. 2013 a U.S. Coast Guard boarding of an unflagged "go-fast" vessel in international waters uncovered Sarmiento, two others, and ~600 kg of cocaine; defendants were arrested and drugs seized.
Sarmiento pleaded guilty in Mar. 2015 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting, under the MDLEA (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 2).
At sentencing (Aug. 2015) Sarmiento sought a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) mitigating-role reduction as a minor participant, citing lack of record and near blindness; the district court denied the reduction and imposed 135 months concurrent on each count.
About three months after sentencing the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 794, revising § 3B1.2 commentary to clarify the "substantially less culpable than the average participant" standard and listing non-exhaustive factors.
Sarmiento appealed, arguing (1) MDLEA exceeds Congress’s Article I power, (2) Amendment 794 is retroactive so he should be resentenced, and alternatively (3) § 3B1.2 is void for vagueness.
The court rejected the MDLEA challenge (Sarmiento conceded he was on a stateless vessel), held Amendment 794 is clarifying and retroactive, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing; vagueness claim need not be reached.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of MDLEA jurisdiction	MDLEA exceeds Congress’s Article I authority, so U.S. lacked jurisdiction	MDLEA is valid at least for stateless vessels; Sarmiento admitted vessel was stateless	Rejected: plea admission that vessel lacked nationality forecloses the challenge; MDLEA application upheld
Retroactivity of Amendment 794 to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 commentary	Amendment 794 clarifies the existing guideline and therefore applies retroactively; would likely entitle Sarmiento to the minor-role reduction	Government contends amendment is substantive and non-retroactive; alternatively that Sarmiento still would be denied the reduction	Held retroactive: amendment is clarifying (considering Commission's intent, guidance purpose, and circuit split) — sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing under Amendment 794
Vagueness of § 3B1.2	§ 3B1.2 is unconstitutionally vague	§ 3B1.2 is sufficiently definite	Not addressed on merits — court remanded on Amendment 794 grounds, so vagueness claim left for district court if necessary

United States v. Matos-Luchi, 627 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (stateless vessels and federal jurisdiction)
Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018) (guilty plea admissions bind defendant)
United States v. Crudup, 375 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2004) (retroactivity inquiry for guideline amendments)
United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (treating Amendment 794 as clarifying)
United States v. Cardales-Luna, 632 F.3d 731 (1st Cir. 2011) (Torruella, J., dissenting) (limits on MDLEA scope)
United States v. Santos, 357 F.3d 136 (1st Cir. 2004) (interpretation of § 3B1.2 commentary in this circuit)
United States v. Godin, 522 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2008) (circuit split resolution as clarification)
United States v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2009) (sentencing court may consider Commission's current policy)
United States v. Cabrera-Polo, 376 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2004) (assessing "significance of amendment as a whole")
United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea admissions and scope of appeal)