United States v. Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546

Cruz pleaded guilty to possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) after agents found a dock pistol modified to fire automatically during a traffic stop.
A bag containing drug paraphernalia and marijuana residue was found in Cruz’s car trunk; that detail was omitted from the stipulated facts in the plea agreement and not included in the PSR.
The plea agreement stipulated a Base Offense Level of 18, a three-level reduction for acceptance, and a Total Offense Level of 15, yielding an estimated guideline range of 18–24 months (Criminal History I). The parties agreed not to seek other guideline adjustments; the government reserved the right to argue for a sentence at the high end.
Before sentencing the government disclosed the drug-paraphernalia evidence in its memorandum and argued for a 24-month sentence (upper end of the guideline range).
At sentencing the district court said it would not consider the bag of drug paraphernalia when calculating the sentence, made detailed findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), explained concerns about machine-gun violence in Puerto Rico and deterrence, and varied upward to impose a 36‑month prison sentence.
Cruz appealed, arguing (1) the government breached the plea agreement by referencing drug paraphernalia and implicitly seeking a §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, and (2) the 36‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Cruz's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Breach of plea agreement by government disclosure	Government violated the agreement by raising drug-paraphernalia facts, effectively seeking a four-level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) increase	Government merely provided information and explicitly recommended 24 months (high end of agreed range); court excluded paraphernalia from sentencing calculus	No breach — prosecutor complied with plea terms and did not seek the enhancement
Substantive reasonableness of 36‑month sentence	Sentence unreasonable; court over-relied on community-level gun-violence considerations	Court properly weighed §3553(a) factors, including deterrence and local prevalence of machine-gun violence, and adequately explained variance	Sentence is substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutor promises in plea bargaining must be fulfilled)
United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (prosecutor must honor plea commitments; review de novo for alleged breach)
United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (prosecutor may disclose sentencing-relevant facts despite plea commitments; obligations coexist)
United States v. Riggs, 287 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2002) (high standards for prosecutors in plea bargaining)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step sentencing review—procedural then substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (sentencing court enjoys broad discretion; appellate court will not substitute its judgment)
United States v. Diaz-Arroyo, 797 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2015) (deterrence and community prevalence of crime are proper sentencing considerations)