United States v. Dehaven Craig, 142 F.4th 192

Dehaven Craig pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon, in exchange for dismissal of drug charges per a plea agreement with the government.
The plea agreement included a key paragraph (“relevant conduct stipulation”) setting forth agreed-upon facts, referencing the Guidelines definitions of total relevant conduct.
During the plea colloquy, both parties and the court expressly confirmed that the stipulated facts in paragraph nine constituted Craig’s total relevant conduct for sentencing.
At sentencing, the government sought two enhancements (for use of a stolen gun and connection to another felony) based on facts not included in the stipulation.
The district court sided with the government, applied the enhancements, and sentenced Craig to a higher range accordingly; Craig appealed, alleging breach of the plea agreement.

Issue	Craig's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Did the plea agreement stipulate all relevant conduct for sentencing (precluding enhancements outside the stipulation)?	Paragraph nine contained all stipulated relevant conduct, so enhancements based on other facts breached the agreement.	The stipulation covered only facts needed for guilt, so enhancements could be sought based on other facts.	The stipulation set forth total relevant conduct; seeking enhancements outside it breached the agreement.
Did the government's right/duty to provide information to the court excuse compliance with the stipulation?	Duty of candor does not permit breach of explicit plea stipulation.	Duty to inform court and correct record permitted seeking enhancements.	Duty of candor does not override plea agreement commitments; breach occurred.
Appropriate remedy for breach of plea agreement	Specific performance and resentencing before a different judge.	Not explicitly addressed.	Vacatur and remand for resentencing before a different judge.
Effect of appellate waiver in plea agreement	Waiver does not prevent argument that the agreement was breached.	Waiver bars some grounds for appeal.	Waiver does not bar claim of breach; government’s motion to dismiss denied as moot.

United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678 (4th Cir. 2016) (Heightened scrutiny for plea agreements; traditional contract principles apply, but government held to higher standard)
United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) (Ambiguities in plea agreements construed against the government)
United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2009) (Appellate waivers do not bar review of government breach claims)
United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 1994) (Remand for resentencing before a different judge after plea agreement breach)