[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12868

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MANUEL VILLA PEREZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00083-CEH-JSS-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12868 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12868

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Manuel Villa Perez appeals his convictions and 87-

month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine 

while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 

and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of 

cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States. On appeal, Perez argues that the district court erred 

in determining that it had jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug 

Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”) without finding a nexus between the vessel and the United States. He also argues that the 

district court clearly erred in not applying a minor-role reduction 

because it failed to properly examine his role in the overall scheme. 

For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. 

We review a district court’s interpretation and application 

of a statute concerning its subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. 

United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). Under our prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless it is overruled by this Court sitting en banc or 

by the Supreme Court. United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 

1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 21-12868 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-12868 Opinion of the Court 3

The MDLEA prohibits knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute onboard 

any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C. 

§ 70503(a). Among other grounds, a vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if it is without nationality, id.

§ 70502(c)(1)(A), and a vessel without nationality includes a vessel 

aboard which the individual in charge fails to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel and a vessel aboard which the 

claimed nation of registry does not assert that the vessel is of its 

nationality, id. § 70502(d)(1)(B)–(C). 

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is not an element of an offense 

but a preliminary question of law for the district court to determine. Campbell, 743 F.3d at 807. We have rejected constitutional 

challenges to jurisdiction under the MDLEA based on a lack of 

nexus between the offense conduct and the United States. See, e.g., 

United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1325 & n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(collecting cases); see also United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 

949 F.3d 567, 587 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The defendants’ MDLEA convictions thus do not violate their due process rights even if their 

offenses lack a ‘nexus’ to the United States”).

Here, the district court did not err in finding jurisdiction under the MDLEA without finding a nexus between the vessel and 

the United States. Indeed, our controlling precedent provides that 

no such nexus is necessary for MDLEA jurisdiction. We therefore 

affirm as to this issue.

II. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12868 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12868

A district court’s denial of a reduction for minor participation in an offense is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 980 (11th Cir. 2015). Clear error review is deferential, and we will not invalidate a district court’s findings unless 

we are left with a “definite and firm conviction” that it committed 

a mistake. United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th 

Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 

(11th Cir. 2010)). 

An offense level is reduced by two levels “[i]f the defendant 

was a minor participant” in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b); see 

also id. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.5. (stating that a minor participant is a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants in the 

criminal activity, but whose role could not be described as minimal”). And, if a defendant convicted of an importation offense receives a minor-role adjustment and has a base offense level of 36 

under the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), then the offense level is further decreased by 3 levels. Id. § 2D1.1(a)(5). The 

sentencing table in Chapter Five of the Sentencings Guidelines 

Manual provides that a criminal history category of I, combined 

with an offense level of 31, results in a guideline range of 108 to 

135 months’ imprisonment. Id. ch. 5, pt. A. A criminal history category I, combined with an offense level of 26, results in a guideline 

range of 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment. Id.

If a district court states that it would impose the same sentence regardless of a disputed Sentencing Guidelines issue, then we

will not review the disputed issue if the ultimate sentence would 

USCA11 Case: 21-12868 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-12868 Opinion of the Court 5

still be reasonable under the guideline range that would have resulted if the disputed issue had been resolved in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006). 

A district court abuses its discretion and imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when it (1) fails to consider relevant 

factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight 

to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of 

judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. United 

States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The 

district court commits a clear error of judgment when it considers 

the proper factors but weighs them unreasonably. Id. at 1195. The 

proper factors are set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the criminal history of the 

defendant, the seriousness of the crime, the promotion of respect 

for the law, just punishment, adequate deterrence, and protection 

of the public.

We conclude that any error the district court committed in 

denying Perez a minor-role reduction was harmless. Indeed, the 

court expressly stated that it would have imposed the same 87-

month sentence even if it had granted his request for that reduction. Furthermore, that sentence would be reasonable even under 

the lower Guidelinesrange with a minor-role reduction. We therefore affirm as to this issue.

* * * * 

Accordingly, we affirm Perez’s convictions and sentences.

USCA11 Case: 21-12868 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-12868

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12868 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 6 of 6