United States v. Burgos-Balbuena, 113 F.4th 112

Esmeraldo Burgos-Balbuena, a Dominican Republic citizen, was arrested after a high-speed boat chase off Puerto Rico for unlawfully reentering the U.S. after prior removals.
Burgos had a history of repeated unlawful entries and prior convictions, including for unlawful reentry and harboring non-citizens.
As part of a plea agreement, both parties recommended an 18-month prison sentence, regardless of guideline calculations.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a higher guideline range (30–37 months) due to enhancements, including for endangering officers during the chase and prior criminal history.
The district court imposed a 37-month sentence at the top of the range, citing repeat offenses and dangerous conduct, despite objections from Burgos.
Burgos appealed, alleging the government breached the plea agreement and that his sentence was unreasonable on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Issue	Burgos's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by insufficiently supporting the 18-month sentence	Gov't did not do enough to advocate for or explain the recommended 18-month plea sentence	Gov't fulfilled its explicit promise in the plea agreement by recommending 18 months and agreeing with Burgos's arguments	No breach; government complied with agreement
Whether the disparity with codefendant's sentence required additional justification or disclosure	Gov't should have flagged the sentencing disparity since codefendant got 21 months for same conduct	No duty existed to proactively raise possible disparities or codefendant's case without evidence defendants were similarly situated	Claim fails; no duty, insufficient record
Whether the district court erred procedurally in calculating or explaining the sentence	Court ignored key mitigating facts, overemphasized criminal history, and erred in calculating criminal history points	All mitigating factors and criminal history were considered; calculation was correct or harmless due to criminal history category remaining unchanged	No procedural error; court's reasoning and calculation upheld
Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable	Sentence too harsh given acceptance of responsibility and mitigating circumstances	Sentence was within Guidelines and justified by repeat offenses and endangerment	Sentence substantively reasonable and affirmed

United States v. Puckett, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plea agreements as contracts; government must uphold explicit promises)
United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (1st Cir. 1992) (evaluating government's overall consistency with plea bargain promises)
United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2004) (breach of plea if prosecutor implicitly undermines agreed recommendation)
United States v. Ortiz, 741 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2014) (plain error standard for unpreserved claims)
United States v. Coplin-Benjamin, 79 F.4th 36 (1st Cir. 2023) (no need for court to rebut every mitigating argument if record shows consideration)