United States v. Cruz-Vazquez, 15-1289P

Cruz pleaded guilty to possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) after agents found a Glock modified to fire automatically in his car.
A bag of drug paraphernalia and marijuana residue was recovered from the trunk but was omitted from the plea-agreement factual stipulation and the PSR.
The plea agreement stipulated a Base Offense Level of 18 and, after acceptance credit, a Total Offense Level of 15, with Criminal History Category I, yielding an estimated guideline range of 18–24 months; the parties agreed not to seek further guideline adjustments.
The government reserved the right to argue for a sentence at the higher end of the stipulated guideline range and recommended 24 months in its sentencing memorandum.
At sentencing the district court declined to consider the drug-paraphernalia bag in calculating the guidelines but imposed a 36-month sentence after making § 3553(a) findings, citing community gun-violence concerns and deterrence as grounds for a variance.
Cruz appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by referencing the drug paraphernalia and that the 36-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of plea agreement	Cruz: government violated plea by introducing drug-paraphernalia info to seek a higher sentence (effectively an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B))	Government: complied with plea terms; recommended high-end guideline and may present facts relevant to sentencing; never sought specific enhancement	No breach. Prosecutor stayed within plea and the district court expressly declined to rely on the paraphernalia for sentencing calculations
Substantive reasonableness of 36‑month sentence	Cruz: district court improperly over-weighted community-level gun-violence factors and thus abused its discretion in varying upward	Government/district court: considered all § 3553(a) factors, properly explained role of deterrence and community safety, and imposed a reasonable variance	Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; variance justified by deterrence and community concerns

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutor must honor promises in plea bargains)
United States v. Riggs, 287 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2002) (prosecutors held to meticulous standards in plea bargaining)
United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (1st Cir. 1992) (prohibits end-runs around plea assurances)
United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (prosecutor may disclose relevant sentencing information; obligations to disclose and to honor plea coexist)
United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (standards for reviewing alleged plea-bargain breaches)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step sentencing-review framework: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Zavala-Marti, 715 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (deference to district court’s sentencing judgment)
United States v. Diaz-Arroyo, 797 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2015) (recognizing deterrence and community crime patterns as sentencing considerations)