United States v. Betancourt-Perez, 833 F.3d 18

Background

Betancourt-Pérez was charged in three indictments for participation in two separate drug conspiracies and a firearm offense; he was arrested in May 2011 after being a fugitive.
The parties negotiated a consolidated plea: guilty pleas to one conspiracy count from each indictment (drug quantities admitted) and one § 924(c) firearm count.
The plea agreement grouped the three conspiracy counts and (erroneously) calculated their Guidelines range as 51–63 months, and recommended concurrent sentences of 60–120 months for the conspiracies plus a consecutive 60 months for the firearm count.
The plea agreement included an appeal waiver: defendant waived appeal so long as he was sentenced in accordance with the sentence-recommendation provision.
The PSI correctly calculated a higher Guidelines range (108–135 months) by grouping and applying proper offense levels; the district court adopted the PSI calculation and sentenced defendant to concurrent 108-month terms for the conspiracies plus a consecutive 60 months for the firearm count, totaling 168 months.
Defendant appealed, arguing the court should have followed the plea agreement’s (erroneous) Guidelines calculations and that the government breached the plea by allowing the PSI to contradict the agreement; the First Circuit considered whether the appeal was waived and dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Betancourt-Pérez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether appeal waiver bars review of sentence	Waiver ambiguous because sentence-recommendation provision could be read to limit conspiracies to 60–63 months; thus appeal should be allowed	Waiver clearly covers sentences within the recommended 60–120 (conspiracies) + 60 consecutive (firearm), and court inquired about waiver; denial of appeal is not a miscarriage of justice	Waiver valid and applicable; appeal dismissed
Whether plea agreement sentence recommendation was ambiguous	Provision ambiguous as to whether the 120-month floor refers to whole sentence or only firearm count; ambiguity should allow appeal	Provision unambiguously contemplated a total sentence of no less than 120 months (60 conspiracies + 60 firearm); overall agreement read as whole clarifies intent	Court finds provision unambiguous: recommended total between 120–180 months; 168 months falls within it
Whether government breached plea agreement by permitting PSI with contrary Guidelines	Submission of PSI with correct grouping undermined plea deal and breached the agreement	PSI prepared by probation office, which acts independently; prosecution did not breach by not controlling PSI or court’s acceptance of it	No breach: PSI and court action not attributable to prosecution; plain-error review finds no merit
Whether district court was required to follow parties’ Guidelines calculation	Defendant contends parties’ calculations were binding or should have been accepted	Parties’ Guidelines calculations are not binding on the court; Rule 11(c)(3)(B) and plea colloquy made this explicit	Court properly applied correct Guidelines; using correct calculations does not void waiver or agreement

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Miliano, 480 F.3d 605 (1st Cir. 2007) (threshold inquiry whether appeal is waived)
United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (standards for validity of appeal waivers)
United States v. Arroyo-Blas, 783 F.3d 361 (1st Cir. 2015) (apply contract principles to interpret plea agreements)
United States v. Okoye, 731 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2013) (consider plea agreement as whole when interpreting provisions)
United States v. Fraza, 106 F.3d 1050 (1st Cir. 1997) (probation officer exercises independent judgment in PSI preparation)