Do the MDLEA first time offenders charged for the violation of both the MDLEA as well as §§ 960 (b) and 963 statutes have a right to safety valve relief under the then applicable statue as a matter of interpretation of the law?

QUESTION PRESENTED Federal laws must protect all persons equally irrespective of the court of federal jurisdiction were the defendants are prosecuted. The conflicting interpretation of a criminal statute between federal courts results in unreasonable differential treatment depending on the jurisdiction where the crime took place. This petition of Certiorari seeks to resolve a circuit split between one (1) court of appeals and four (4) others on an important sentencing matter related to the conflicting interpretation of the then applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) safety valve provision! and the §§ 70503 and 70506 MDLEA and controlled substances (§§ 960 and 963), statutes. This conflict resulted in an unjustified differential sentencing of identically situated individuals, but for the federal jurisdiction where their offenses were committed. While in the decision of United States v. Mosquera Murillo, 902 F. 3d 285 (2018), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit applied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) safety valve relief to first time offenders charged with §§ 70503 and 70506 MDLEA and §§960, 963 narcotics violations, four (4) other circuits, based on the strict plain language of said statutes, concluded that such offenders do not qualify for the safety valve under the then-applicable safety valve provision. See, 1 In December of 2018 Congress enacted the First Step Act which, among other matters, amended the § 3558 (f) safety valve provision to explicitly include MDLEA offenses under §§ 70503 and 70506 among offenses eligible for relief from statutory minimums. Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 402(a)(1)(A)@i), 182 Stat. 5194, 5221 (2018). United States v. De la Cruz, 998 F. 3d 508, 513-519 (1s Cir 2021); United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897 F. 3d 629, 633-634 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz, 679 F. 3d 1327, 1328-29 (11% Cir. 2012); United States v. GamboaCardenas, 508 F. 3d 491, 496-502 (9 Cir. 2007)(Circuit Judge Fisher dissenting, finding that safety valve relief is available for MDLEA offenses). Only upon the granting of this Petition said differential treatment could be resolved and uniformity could be obtained. Therefore, the Supreme Court should overturn the precedent set by the four (4) other circuits and decide that all first time MDLEA offenders are entitled to safety valve relief as a matter of interpretation of law under § 960. The disagreement among circuits regarding the same matter and the post Mosquera Murillo legislation that, amended the safety valve provision to explicitly include MDLEA offenses eligible relief from statutory minimums, clearly demonstrate that the issue cannot be resolved by the then plain language of the then applicable statutory provisions. The question presented is: Do the MDLEA first time offenders charged for the violation of both the MDLEA as well as §§ 960 (b) and 963 statutes have a right to safety valve relief under the then applicable statue as a matter of interpretation of the law? 2 of 21 PARTIES Francisco Batista-Reyes, petitioner on review, was the defendant-appellant below. The United States of America, respondent on review, was the plaintiff-appellee below.