United States v. Christopher Purser, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5491

Purser pled guilty to Count One: conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
As part of the plea, Purser waived the right to appeal the sentence or its determination, with narrow exceptions for maximum/upward departures or variances.
The Government agreed to recommend favorable sentencing adjustments and to not seek an upward departure or variance, while reserving certain sentencing factors.
The initial PSR set a total offense level of 37, with a Guidelines range of 262–327 months; objections followed regarding B1.1(b)(2)(B)/(C) and leadership adjustments.
The probation office later recommended a 6-level increase under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) and a 4-level leadership adjustment under § 3B1.1(a), contrary to the plea agreement.
At sentencing, the district court ultimately applied a 4-level B2.1.1(b)(2)(B) adjustment and rejected a minor-role adjustment, while concluding no breach by the Government regarding the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the appeal waiver bar Purser's appeal given a plea breach?	Purser argues Government breach voids waiver.	Government contends no breach; waiver remains.	Waiver bars the appeal; breach cured; appeal dismissed.
Did the Government breach the plea agreement by arguing § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C)?	Yes; initial objection violated the agreement.	Withdrawal cured breach; district court followed 4-level recommendation.	Breach occurred but was cured; waiver remains valid.
Was the breach implicitly or explicitly uncured by advocating § 3B1.1(a)?	Implicit breach not allowed; not mentioned in the agreement.	No explicit promise restricting § 3B1.1(a); not breached.	No implicit breach; no violation of the plea agreement on this point.
Should harmless error review apply given preserved breach?	Santobello requires reversal for preserved breach.	Puckett allows cure and preserves trust; harmless error not controlling.	Harmlessness not required; cure available; plea waiver remains enforceable.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (breached plea promises require remedy; automatic reversal if preserved)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (breach may be curable; preserved objections matter)
Munoz, 408 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2005) (breach and cure principles in Fifth Circuit)
Valencia, 985 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1993) (rejects harmlessness analysis for preserved plea-breach objections)
Saling, 205 F.3d 764 (5th Cir. 2000) (preserved breach requires reversal; no harmless error)
Hooten, 942 F.2d 878 (5th Cir. 1991) (discusses breach analysis; not deciding automatic reversal)
Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (factual basis sufficiency; appeal-waiver context)
Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (breach and waiver considerations)
Elashyi, 554 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008) (plea agreements and breaches)
Roberts, 624 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2010) (plea-bargain considerations)
Keresztury, 293 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2002) (harmlessness and breach)