United States v. Cruz-Agosto, 102 F.4th 20

Ángel Luis Cruz-Agosto was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, based on a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement.
At the time of the firearm offense, Cruz-Agosto was already serving supervised federal release for a prior drug conviction.
The plea agreement had the government and Cruz-Agosto jointly recommend a 37-month sentence, regardless of criminal history, and allowed the government to argue for a consecutive 4-month sentence for the supervised release violation.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a higher guideline range (57–71 months) due to Cruz-Agosto’s criminal history.
The district court imposed sentences at the high end of the guidelines: 71 months for the new offense and 18 months (consecutive) for the revocation of supervised release, exceeding the plea recommendation.
Cruz-Agosto appealed, claiming the government breached the plea agreement through its conduct and statements at sentencing.

Issue	Cruz-Agosto's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by not vigorously supporting the joint 37-month recommendation at sentencing	The government only paid lip service and failed to justify the lower sentence	The plea agreement required only a joint recommendation, not additional advocacy	No breach; government fulfilled its obligations by recommending 37 months
Whether the government was required to expressly recommend no more than a 4-month consecutive revocation sentence or a concurrent sentence	Government failed to press for lowest possible revocation sentence or concurrency	The agreement allowed, but did not require, advocating for these terms	No plain error; no evidence the outcome was affected by government’s conduct
Whether the government had to correct the court’s alleged misunderstanding of the PSR’s sentencing recommendation	Government should have clarified if the court misunderstood PSR’s position	The court’s statements were ambiguous, and no clear error existed	No clear or obvious error; government had no duty to interject

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutors must fulfill promises made in plea agreements)
United States v. Lessard, 35 F.4th 37 (standard for breach of plea agreements and plain error review)
United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (government must uphold plea agreement terms, no extra advocacy required unless stipulated)
United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (overall conduct, not form or enthusiasm, is the standard for plea compliance)
United States v. Frazier, 340 F.3d 5 (no breach when government neither fails nor argues beyond agreed scope)
United States v. Montañez-Quiñones, 911 F.3d 59 (plain error requires likely effect on outcome of sentencing)