United States v. Gabriel Cruz-Romero, 848 F.3d 399

Cruz-Romero, a Mexican national, was stopped near the U.S.–Mexico border and found with 146.8 kg of marijuana in his vehicle. He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kg or more of marijuana; an associated conspiracy count was dismissed.
His written plea agreement waived appeals of conviction or sentence except for ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct, and included a government promise not to oppose a safety valve adjustment if he met the 5 statutory/GUIDELINES criteria.
The parties disputed satisfaction of the fifth safety valve criterion, which requires that the defendant, by sentencing, "truthfully provide[] to the Government all information and evidence" about the offense.
Cruz-Romero canceled a scheduled debriefing, made no post-arrest statements, and did not provide the government additional information beyond factual stipulations in the plea agreement.
The district court found he failed to satisfy §5C1.2(a)(5) and denied the safety valve; it imposed the 60-month statutory minimum. Cruz-Romero appealed, claiming the government breached the plea agreement by opposing the safety valve and thus the appeal waiver is unenforceable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the government breach the plea agreement by opposing safety-valve relief?	Cruz-Romero: his plea-stipulated facts satisfied the disclosure requirement, so gov’t promise not to oppose was breached.	Gov’t: promise conditioned on compliance with §5C1.2(a)(5); Cruz-Romero failed to provide required information.	No breach; government reasonably enforced the agreement by opposing relief based on failure to disclose.
Was the appeal waiver unenforceable due to alleged breach?	Cruz-Romero: breach renders waiver unenforceable, permitting appeal.	Gov’t: no breach occurred, so the valid waiver bars appeal.	Appeal waiver is enforceable; appeal dismissed.
Did Cruz-Romero meet §5C1.2(a)(5) (truthful disclosure) via plea stipulation?	Cruz-Romero: stipulation to factual basis satisfied disclosure obligation.	Gov’t: stipulation (sourced from co-defendant) is insufficient; defendant must personally provide all known info.	Stipulation alone did not satisfy §5C1.2(a)(5); defendant bore burden to provide information and did not do so.
Does ambiguity in plea text (no definition of "cooperation") invalidate waiver or gov’t right to oppose safety valve?	Cruz-Romero: agreement is ambiguous and fails to reserve gov’t right clearly, so waiver unenforceable.	Gov’t: safety-valve paragraph plainly conditions the gov’t promise on compliance with §5C1.2(a).	Court deems argument abandoned as conclusory; no ambiguity found to bar enforcement.

United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752 (5th Cir.) (standard: review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal)
United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222 (5th Cir.) (review de novo whether government breached plea agreement)
United States v. Harper, 643 F.3d 135 (5th Cir.) (interpret agreement by parties’ reasonable understanding)
United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.) (safety-valve applies only to defendants who fully assisted the government)
United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143 (5th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to ensure complete disclosure for safety-valve)
United States v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 662 F.3d 369 (5th Cir.) (plain language requires defendant to truthfully provide all information to qualify for safety-valve)
United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402 (5th Cir.) (conclusory arguments may be deemed abandoned)