[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10863

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS MINA-SALAZAR, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00055-SCB-SPF-4

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10863

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Mina-Salazar was sentenced to 188 months’ 

imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 

and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 

methamphetamine, and marijuana under the Maritime Drug Law 

Enforcement Act. He now appeals, arguing that the district court 

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence and that the 

government breached his plea agreement by failing to recommend 

a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We 

conclude that the plea agreement contains an enforceable sentence 

appeal waiver that bars his substantive reasonableness challenge 

and that the government did not clearly violate the agreement. We 

therefore dismiss in part and affirm in part.

I. 

The United States Coast Guard intercepted a stateless vessel 

in international waters, about 155 nautical miles from Costa Rica. 

On board the vessel were four crew members, Mina-Salazar and

his three codefendants. The captain of the vessel claimed Costa 

Rican nationality for himself and the vessel, but Costa Rica neither 

confirmed nor denied that claim. The Coast Guard treated the 

vessel as one without nationality and subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States. After boarding the vessel and noticing packages 

that resembled contraband on the deck, Coast Guard members 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 2 of 10
21-10863 Opinion of the Court 3

asked the captain to explain the purpose of their voyage, and he 

responded, “to get drugs.” A subsequent search of the vessel 

uncovered approximately 355 kilograms of cocaine, 30 pounds of 

marijuana, and one pound of methamphetamine.

The four men on board were jointly indicted on two counts. 

The first count charged them with conspiring to distribute and to 

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and 

marijuana while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States. See 21 U.S.C. § 960(b); 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 

70506(a)–(b). The second count charged them with aiding and 

abetting each other in possessing with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b); 46 

U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a). Mina-Salazar entered a plea 

agreement with the government in which he agreed to plea guilty 

to the first count, and the government agreed to seek dismissal of 

the second.

Two other components of the plea agreement are especially 

relevant to this appeal. First, Mina-Salazar expressly waived “the 

right to appeal defendant’s sentence on any ground, including the 

ground that the Court erred in determining the applicable 

guidelines range,” with three exceptions. He could appeal on the 

ground that (a) “the sentence exceeds the defendant’s applicable 

guidelines range,” (b) “the sentence exceeds the statutory 

maximum penalty,” or (c) “the sentence violates the Eighth 

Amendment.” In addition, he would be released from the waiver 

and could challenge his sentence if the government appealed. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10863

Second, the government agreed that it “will not oppose the 

defendant’s request to the Court that the defendant receive a 

two- level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility” 

under § 3E1.1(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines “in the event 

that no adverse information is received suggesting such a 

recommendation to be unwarranted.” And if his total offense level 

was 16 or greater, the government agreed “to file a motion” for a 

reduction of one additional level under § 3E1.1(b) so long as the 

defendant complied with that guideline provision and all the terms 

of his plea agreement.

The district court accepted Mina-Salazar’s guilty plea, and 

the case proceeded to the sentencing stage. Before Mina-Salazar 

received his sentence, however, law enforcement officials 

discovered that he had been untruthful about the offense. He and 

his codefendants had informed officials that their plan was to locate

drugs that had been discarded into the ocean and then to sell them. 

But, as revealed by a codefendant’s confession and GPS evidence, 

their voyage was actually a planned drug-smuggling expedition 

from Colombia to Costa Rica. Because the truth only came to light 

after two of the codefendants had already been sentenced, they 

received significantly lighter sentences than they otherwise would 

have if law enforcement officials had been aware of the actual

nature of the offense from the beginning.

For Mina-Salazar, this discovery led to a recalculation of his 

recommended sentence. Although an earlier version of his 

presentence investigation report included a three-level reduction 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 4 of 10
21-10863 Opinion of the Court 5

for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a) and (b), the 

probation office revised the report to remove that reduction 

because of his dishonesty. The report also included a two-level 

enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1. The 

resulting Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. 

With no objection from Mina-Salazar to the revised report, the 

district court sentenced him at the bottom of that range to 188 

months’ imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised 

release. Mina-Salazar now appeals.

II. 

As a preliminary matter, we set out the arguments that 

Mina-Salazar raises on appeal and address his pending motion for 

leave to file a supplemental brief. His initial merits brief raises two 

issues: whether his sentence was substantively unreasonable given 

the disparity between his sentence and those that his codefendants 

received, and whether the government breached the plea 

agreement by failing to recommend a reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility. After the government filed its response brief, 

Mina- Salazar sought permission to file a supplemental brief to 

address United States v. Dávila-Reyes, a recent First Circuit case 

holding that a provision of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement 

Act goes beyond Congress’s Article I powers by improperly 

asserting jurisdiction over certain vessels. See 23 F.4th 153, 157–58 

(1st Cir. 2022); 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C).

Whatever bearing Dávila-Reyes may have had if 

Mina- Salazar properly raised an argument about the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10863

constitutionality of the Act in his initial brief, we decline to allow 

him to raise that argument for the first time now. An appellant

may not raise an issue in a supplemental brief that he did not raise 

in his opening brief. See United States v. Durham, 795 F.3d 1329, 

1330 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Our Circuit has recognized a 

narrow exception to this rule, which allows an appellant to raise a 

new issue based on an intervening Supreme Court decision that 

overrules binding precedent. See id. at 1331. A non-binding 

decision from a sister circuit does not fall within that exception. 

We therefore deny Mina-Salazar’s motion for leave to file a 

supplemental brief.

III. 

Next, we decline to address Mina-Salazar’s argument that 

his sentence is substantively unreasonable, due to the sentence 

appeal waiver in his plea agreement. “We review the validity of a 

sentence appeal waiver de novo.” United States v. Johnson, 541 

F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). To be valid and enforceable, a 

sentence appeal waiver must have been made knowingly and 

voluntarily. Id. That standard is met if the government shows that 

either (1) “the district court specifically questioned the defendant 

about the waiver,” or (2) “the record makes clear that the 

defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the 

waiver.” Id.

The government argues that Mina-Salazar’s waiver is valid 

because the magistrate judge specifically addressed the waiver 

during the Rule 11 colloquy. We agree. During that colloquy, the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 6 of 10
21-10863 Opinion of the Court 7

magistrate judge explained the scope of the appeal waiver and 

confirmed that Mina-Salazar understood the waiver and agreed to 

it voluntarily. Accordingly, we will enforce the appeal waiver.

The magistrate judge correctly explained to Mina-Salazar 

that his waiver only allows him to appeal his sentence if it exceeds 

the Guidelines range or the statutory maximum, if he argues that 

it violates the Eighth Amendment, or if the government appeals. 

Here, Mina-Salazar argues that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because his codefendants received substantially 

lighter sentences. But because his 188-month sentence does not 

exceed either the Guidelines range or the statutory maximum, and 

no other exception allowing appeal under the agreement applies, 

his appeal waiver bars our review.

IV. 

Mina-Salazar’s remaining argument is that the government 

breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a three-level 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 of the 

Guidelines. Because he did not raise this issue before the district 

court, we review for plain error. United States v. Romano, 314 

F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2002). The plain error standard is 

satisfied if “(1) error occurred, and (2) the error is plain, (3) affects 

the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” 

Id.

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10863

To assess whether the government breached a plea 

agreement, we must “determine the scope of the government’s 

promises and ask whether the government’s actions were 

inconsistent with what the defendant reasonably understood when 

he entered his guilty plea.” United States v. Sosa, 782 F.3d 630, 637 

(11th Cir. 2015) (quotation and brackets omitted). For this 

violation to constitute plain error, it must be “clear or obvious, 

rather than subject to reasonable dispute.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

A breach of a plea agreement is not clear or obvious when “the 

drafting of an agreement leaves the scope of the government’s 

commitments open to doubt.” Id.

To begin, we note that the government did not promise to 

recommend a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a)—it promised 

not to “oppose the defendant’s request to the Court” for the

reduction. But it did agree to “file a motion” for the additional 

one- level reduction under § 3E1.1(b).

Even so, the government did not clearly violate the plea

agreement by failing to recommend a reduction. A defendant can 

only qualify for a reduction under § 3E1.1 if he “clearly 

demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 (Nov. 2018). Related to that 

requirement, the plea agreement conditioned the government’s 

obligations on criteria that were unsatisfied here. The government 

was only bound by its obligation not to oppose Mina-Salazar’s 

request for a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a) if no “adverse 

information” surfaced that suggested the request to be 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 8 of 10
21-10863 Opinion of the Court 9

unwarranted. And the government agreed to move for the 

additional one-level reduction if it determined that Mina-Salazar 

qualified, which required him to comply with § 3E1.1(b) and all 

terms of his plea agreement.

Mina-Salazar concedes that he provided false information 

about his involvement in the offense and only told the truth when 

he was confronted with contrary evidence, which shows that a 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility was likely undeserved. 

The government, in turn, was not clearly obligated to recommend 

any reduction even though Mina-Salazar eventually told the truth. 

As the commentary to § 3E1.1 explains, conduct that results in an 

enhancement for obstructing or impeding the administration of 

justice under § 3C1.1 “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has 

not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” Id. § 3E1.1 

cmt. n.4.

Here, the district court applied an enhancement for 

obstruction of justice because Mina-Salazar contributed to the 

inappropriate sentencing of his codefendants by lying about the

offense. The same conduct supports the conclusion that a 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility was unwarranted. The 

plea agreement, therefore, did not clearly require the government 

to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

Because Mina-Salazar has not shown that the alleged breach plainly 

occurred, we need not address the other prongs of the plain error 

standard.

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 21-10863

V. 

The sentence appeal waiver in Mina-Salazar’s plea 

agreement bars his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence, so we dismiss that aspect of his appeal. As to his 

argument that the government breached the plea agreement, we 

affirm, because no clear violation occurred.

DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10863 Date Filed: 04/19/2022 Page: 10 of 10