Did the First Circuit correctly interpret the pre-amendment version of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) as excluding MDLEA offenses from safety-valve relief?

QUESTION PRESENTED The First Circuit affirmed the denial of Mr. Espinal-Mieses’s motion for safety-valve relief under the former version of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which did not explicitly include violations of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (““MDLEA”) amongst the enumerated safety-valve eligible crimes. Six months after Mr. Espinal-Mieses’s sentencing, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to expressly include MDLEA offenses as safety-valve eligible. Mr. Espinal-Mieses argued to the district court and the First Circuit that although MDLEA violations were not specifically mentioned in the previous version of § 3553(f), the MDLEA incorporates 21 U.S.C. § 960(b), and specifically instructs that MDLEA violations are punishable pursuant to § 960. And because § 960 was one of the offenses enumerated in the pre-amendment version of § 3553(f), Mr. Espinal-Mieses argued safety-valve relief was available. (A.10-29). Did the First Circuit correctly interpret the pre-amendment version of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) as excluding MDLEA offenses from safety-valve relief? ii