United States v. Irizarry-Rosario, 903 F.3d 151

On Sept. 15, 2016, Axel Irizarry-Rosario pleaded guilty to two counts: possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841).
Plea agreement: government would recommend 60 months (statutory minimum) for the § 924(c) count; for the drug count the parties agreed to a Guidelines base offense level yielding a 6–12 month range if Criminal History Category I applied; defense would request the low end, government the high end.
Plea agreement also stated that any party recommending a sentence outside the agreed recommendations would be a material breach.
At sentencing the government reiterated its recommendation of 60 months on the weapons count but separately urged the court to impose the high end (12 months) for the drug count, citing the large quantity of firearms and ammunition found.
The district court found Irizarry-Rosario in Criminal History Category I but imposed 84 months on the weapons count (above the agreed 60) and 12 months on the drug count, consecutive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by referencing the weapons to encourage a sentence above 60 months on the § 924(c) count.	Govt: did not breach; it repeatedly and unequivocally recommended 60 months for the weapons count and only used weapons facts to justify a higher drug-term within the plea terms.	Irizarry-Rosario: government’s references to weapons effectively undercut the agreed 60‑month recommendation and amounted to an end-run around the plea.	No breach. Government adhered to the plea; references to weapons were permissible to support the agreed drug-count recommendation and to inform sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3661.

United States v. Oppenheimer–Torres, 806 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (plain-error review standard for unpreserved sentencing claims)
United States v. Miranda–Martinez, 790 F.3d 270 (1st Cir.) (limits on government advocacy at sentencing under plea agreements)
United States v. Ubiles–Rosario, 867 F.3d 277 (1st Cir.) (resolving tension between plea‑agreement adherence and providing sentencing information)
United States v. Cruz–Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546 (1st Cir.) (prohibits explicit repudiation and "end-runs" around plea assurances)
United States v. Rivera–Rodríguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (prosecutors held to meticulous standards in plea bargaining)
United States v. Kurkculer, 918 F.2d 295 (1st Cir.) (government must keep plea promises or defendant may be released from bargain)