United States v. Acevedo-Osorio, 118 F.4th 117

Natanael Acevedo-Osorio pleaded guilty to one count of coercion and enticement of a minor, with the government agreeing to recommend the statutory minimum 120-month sentence, far below the Guidelines range (292–365 months).
The government offered no substantive explanation for this downward variance at sentencing; the court instead imposed a 292-month sentence, more than double the recommended term.
The court also imposed supervised release conditions restricting unsupervised contact with minors, including Acevedo’s children, and ordered a $5,000 special assessment and restitution to the victim’s mother.
On appeal, Acevedo argued breach of the plea agreement, procedural sentencing errors, and contested the supervised release, special assessment, and restitution orders.
The First Circuit reviewed for plain error (breach claim not raised below) and abuse of discretion (release and assessment conditions), vacating the special assessment and restitution but affirming the sentence and supervised release condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Government’s Breach of Plea Agreement	Govt failed to explain its low sentence request, thus breaching the plea deal.	No duty to explain unless plea demands it; rec’d minimum sentence as agreed.	Govt breached by failing to explain; but breach not plain error, sentence affirmed.
Procedural Reasonableness of Sentence	Sentence based on unreliable, uncorroborated victim statements, violating procedure.	PSR is presumptively reliable; no credible evidence challenging its info.	No clear error; PSR reliance upheld, sentence affirmed.
Restriction on Unsupervised Contact w/ Children	Condition not tied to offense, infringes parental rights, unsupported by evidence.	Offense was exploitative/violent; restriction is prudent, reviewable, and modifiable.	Condition justified by record, not an abuse of discretion.
JVTA Special Assessment and Restitution Orders	Acevedo is indigent; no findings support the $5,000 assessment or car restitution.	Court may consider future ability to pay and restitution to representative/victim proper.	Special assessment/restitution vacated, remanded for findings.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (strict enforcement of plea bargains; breach by government voids plea agreement's value)
United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (prosecutor’s duty for consistent support with plea agreement)
United States v. Frazier, 340 F.3d 5 (government must honor benefit of plea bargain, even implicitly)
United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50 (implicit breach occurs by undermining support for agreed sentence)
United States v. Mojica-Ramos, 103 F.4th 844 (prosecutorial conduct can constitute breach even without explicit statement)
United States v. Lessard, 35 F.4th 37 (government has no affirmative obligation of advocacy unless plea agreement says so)
United States v. Brown, 31 F.4th 39 (advocacy against agreed range is breach; factual support for range not necessarily so)
United States v. Santiago-Colon, 918 F.3d 223 (PSR presumptively reliable; objections must have substance to defeat reliance)