United States v. Cruz-Olavarria, 919 F.3d 661

Cruz-Olavarria pled guilty in 2012 to possession of a modified firearm classified as a machine gun; he was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
In 2016 he was arrested with a modified pistol (machine gun), multiple magazines (one fully loaded), and marijuana; he was indicted on five counts and pleaded guilty to Counts One (felon-in-possession) and Two (illegal possession of a machine gun) in exchange for dismissal of Counts Three–Five.
The plea agreement included a Sentence Recommendation provision permitting the defendant to request no less than 96 months and the government to request up to 120 months, and an appellate-waiver clause covering sentences within that recommendation range.
The district court sentenced Cruz-Olavarria to 120 months (statutory maximum) on the new charges, above the Guidelines range (30–37 months), stressing the particular danger of machine guns and the connection to drug activity.
The court then revoked supervised release for the earlier machine‑gun conviction, classified the violation as Grade A (Guidelines range 12–18 months, statutory maximum 24 months), and imposed a consecutive 24‑month revocation sentence based on repeated dangerous conduct and risk to public safety.
On appeal Cruz-Olavarria challenged both the 120‑month sentence (arguing the appellate waiver did not cover 120 months) and the 24‑month revocation sentence (arguing the upward variance was substantively unreasonable).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate‑waiver in the plea agreement bars review of the 120‑month sentence	Waiver should not apply because defendant only acquiesced to a 96‑month request and did not concede reasonableness of the government's reserved request up to 120 months	Waiver covers the sentence because the plea's sentencing‑recommendation provision establishes a range (96–120 months) and appellate waiver applies if sentence falls within that range	Waiver applies; appeal of the 120‑month sentence is dismissed
Whether the 24‑month revocation sentence (6 months above Guidelines) is substantively unreasonable	The upward variance is unjustified; the court failed to identify differences from the ordinary Guidelines case and thus abused its discretion	The court reasonably relied on the repeated, dangerous possession of a machine gun, the nature of the new offense (same gun offense as underlying supervision), and the defendant's disregard for public safety	Affirmed: sentence is substantively reasonable; court provided a plausible rationale and defensible result

United States v. Morales-Arroyo, 854 F.3d 118 (1st Cir.) (plea agreement sentencing recommendations define range for appellate‑waiver coverage)
United States v. Betancourt-Pérez, 833 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (same principle: waiver covers the range between parties' recommendations)
United States v. Tanco-Pizarro, 892 F.3d 472 (1st Cir.) (affirming large upward variant revocation sentence for gun possession while on supervised release)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Nuñez, 840 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (sentence must reflect a plausible rationale and defensible result)
United States v. Bermúdez-Meléndez, 827 F.3d 160 (1st Cir.) (extent of variance considered in substantive‑reasonableness review)
United States v. Matos-de-Jesús, 856 F.3d 174 (1st Cir.) (articulation of plausible rationale and defensible result standard)
United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 637 (9th Cir.) (description of extreme lethality of machine guns cited by the district court)