United States v. Diaz-Bermudez, 778 F.3d 309

Police found two handguns (one loaded), magazines, ammunition, >700 small bags of crack, 75 small bags of powder cocaine, and drug paraphernalia in a vehicle where Díaz was the sole passenger; Díaz admitted drugs (and later in his plea admitted possessing the firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime).
Indicted on one count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and two drug-distribution counts; Díaz pleaded guilty to the § 924(c) count under a written plea agreement.
The plea agreement was hybrid: the government agreed to move to dismiss the drug counts (Rule 11(c)(1)(A)) and recommended a 60‑month sentence for the firearm count (a non‑binding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) recommendation).
At sentencing the court dismissed the drug counts but rejected the parties’ 60‑month recommendation and imposed a 108‑month sentence; Díaz appealed.
Díaz raised (1) entitlement to withdraw his plea after the court rejected the 60‑month recommendation, and (2) that the 108‑month upward variance was unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rejection of the plea’s 60‑month recommended sentence required allowing Díaz to withdraw his plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5)	N/A (government sought to uphold sentence/dismissals)	Díaz: Rule 11(c)(5) required withdrawal because court rejected the plea’s recommended 60‑month sentence	Rejection affirmed: plea’s 60‑month term was a non‑binding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) recommendation; Rule 11(c)(5) withdrawal applies only to (A) or (C) provisions; court properly denied withdrawal
Whether the 108‑month sentence (48 months above the 60‑month guidelines recommendation) was procedurally reasonable	N/A	Díaz: sentencing court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors and relied solely on disbelief of his claimed ignorance	No plain procedural error: record shows the court considered § 3553(a) factors; court permissibly assessed Díaz’s sincerity and relied on criminal history and offense facts
Whether the 108‑month sentence was substantively reasonable	N/A	Díaz: upward variance of 80% was unjustified and excessive	Substantively reasonable on plain‑error review: court provided a plausible rationale (lack of sincerity, prior convictions, probation status, seriousness of offense) and result was within universe of reasonable outcomes

Ocasio-Cancel v. United States, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2013) (plea‑based factual sourcing for appeals)
Medina‑Villegas v. United States, 700 F.3d 580 (1st Cir. 2012) (plain‑error review of sentencing objections)
Del Valle‑Rodríguez v. United States, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
Self v. United States, 596 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) stipulated sentences from non‑binding recommendations)
Martin v. United States, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (standards for plausibility of sentencing rationale)