United States v. Jurado-Nazario, 979 F.3d 60

Defendant Edwin Jurado-Nazario pled guilty to two counts of production of child pornography and two counts of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.
His plea agreement calculated a total offense level yielding a Guidelines range of 210–262 months; the government reserved the right to argue for up to 235 months and allowed Jurado-Nazario to argue for as low as 180 months; both sides agreed no further adjustments would be sought.
The district court independently calculated a higher Guidelines range of 324–405 months, then granted a downward variance for the defendant’s military service and sentenced him to 300 months.
Jurado-Nazario appealed, conceding the Guidelines calculation and procedural regularity but arguing (1) the sentence was substantively unreasonable (abuse of discretion) and (2) the government breached the plea agreement by defending the 300‑month sentence on appeal.
The First Circuit reviewed de novo the plea‑breach claim and for abuse of discretion the substantive‑reasonableness claim, and it affirmed the district court on both points.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by defending the 300‑month sentence on appeal	Jurado‑Nazario: Gov. violated its promise not to seek or recommend a sentence above 235 months by defending the higher sentence on appeal	Government: Plea restriction applied only to sentencing recommendations below; as appellee it may defend the district court's judgment on appeal	No breach. The promise constrained sentencing recommendations, not appellate advocacy; gov may defend the sentence on appeal.
Whether the 300‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable (abuse of discretion)	Jurado‑Nazario: Court undervalued mitigating factors (military service, childhood abuse, claimed TBI/PTSD, and harshness of child‑porn guidelines) and should have given a larger downward variance	Government: Sentence reasonable given the higher Guidelines, number of victims, harm, and district court’s factual findings; court did grant a variance for military service	Affirmed. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court found the district court properly considered §3553(a) factors, made non‑clearly erroneous factual findings, and did not abuse its discretion.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutorial promises forming part of a plea must be fulfilled)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standard: abuse of discretion considering totality of circumstances)
Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (preservation rule for substantive‑reasonableness challenges)
United States v. Carbajal‑Váldez, 874 F.3d 778 (government may, as appellee, support a district court ruling on appeal despite plea‑stage limitations)
United States v. Cortés‑Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (Guidelines range is the starting point for sentencing analysis)
United States v. Cruz‑Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546 (plea‑agreement breach is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Holmes v. Spencer, 685 F.3d 51 (reply‑brief response to new arguments in appellee brief is not waived)