United States v. Abdulrasheed Yusuf, 993 F.3d 167

Campbell was stopped for a partially obstructed plate and verified as the driver; during the stop officers discovered two handguns in the vehicle and charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Yusuf participated in a check-cashing/identity-theft conspiracy; he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and possessed victims’ IDs.
Both defendants signed plea agreements that stipulated an agreed Guidelines offense level and expressly prohibited either party from arguing for a sentence outside the resulting Guidelines range or seeking departures/variances.
At sentencing Campbell (through counsel and allocution) requested noncustodial sentences; the district court nevertheless imposed a one year and one day sentence (below the agreed 30–37 month range).
Yusuf’s resentencing followed reversal of his original sentence; defense counsel argued proportionality with a co-conspirator’s lower sentence and the district court both adjusted criminal-history and granted a post-conviction variance, imposing a 30-month aggregate term.
The government appealed both sentences as breaches of the plea agreements; Campbell also cross-appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Campbell breached his plea agreement by seeking a below-Guidelines sentence	Government: Campbell’s counsel and his allocution explicitly argued for noncustodial sentence, violating the agreement not to seek variances	Campbell: remarks were allocution and urging consideration of §3553(a) factors; did not contest agreed Guidelines range	Court: Campbell plainly breached; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing by a different judge
Whether Yusuf breached his plea agreement by arguing proportionality with co-defendant’s lower sentence	Government: Yusuf affirmatively advocated for a below-Guidelines sentence in breach of the stipulation	Yusuf: counsel merely raised a proportionality fact and was obliged to mention co-defendant’s sentence so the court could consider sentencing fairly	Court: Yusuf breached too (though closer); advocacy went beyond merely presenting facts; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing by a different judge
Whether the traffic stop and its duration violated the Fourth Amendment (Campbell)	Campbell: officer impermissibly prolonged stop by conducting an “eyeball search” while Campbell looked for documents	Government: officer had objective reasons to stop and was reasonably diligent in checking license/registration/insurance; discovery occurred during permissible inquiries	Court: Stop and five-minute interaction were reasonable; denial of suppression affirmed

United States v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard for determining when a defendant breaches a plea agreement by arguing outside stipulated Guidelines)
United States v. Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 1998) (remedy and enforcement principles for plea-agreement breaches)
United States v. Badaracco, 954 F.2d 928 (3d Cir. 1992) (government breached plea agreement by undermining stipulation at sentencing)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic-stop inquiries that measurably extend duration are unconstitutional)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective-reasonableness test for traffic stops; subjective motives immaterial)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (importance of enforcing plea bargains)
United States v. Erwin, 765 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2014) (treating plea agreements under contract-law principles and remedies for breach)