USA v. Angel Marcelo Quiroz Mastarreno, No. 18-10136 (11th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10136 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10136 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20568-FAM-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANGEL MARCELO QUIROZ MASTARRENO, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 16, 2019) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, and MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10136 Date Filed: 01/16/2019 Page: 2 of 2 Angel Marcelo Quiroz Mastarreno appeals his 120-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine while he was on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70506(b), which is part of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. His sole contention is that the bar against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve relief from a mandatory minimum sentence for him and others who violate that Act violates the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Castillo, 899 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that safety valve relief is not available for Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act violations because that statute is not listed in the safety valve provision), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Sep. 21, 2018) (No. 18-374) Mastarreno’s contention is foreclosed by our Castillo decision, which held that the bar against safety valve relief for violations of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 1213 (“Congress is entitled to deny the safety valve to offenders convicted under the Act,” and has legitimate, rational reasons to treat them differently from those who violate drug laws domestically). We follow the Castillo decision, as we are bound to do under the prior panel precedent rule. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.