United States v. Manuel Estrada-Gonzalez, 32 F.4th 607

Defendant Manuel Estrada-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry; the written plea agreement forbade the government from "suggest[ing] in any way" that the court should depart or vary upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range.
The applicable Guidelines range was 6–12 months; the district court expressed concern about threatening conduct in police reports and indicated it was contemplating an upward variance.
At sentencing the prosecutor played bodycam footage and said a sentence at the "high end of the sentencing guideline range would be at the least appropriate in this case," an arguably ambiguous remark.
The district court ultimately imposed an 18-month sentence (an upward variance of six months above the guidelines range).
Defense counsel objected that the prosecutor’s wording implied a recommendation for an above-guidelines sentence in breach of the plea agreement; the district court overruled, finding the prosecutor only sought a high-end guidelines sentence and the prosecutor later clarified she sought only the top of the range.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, clarifying that subsidiary factual findings about what was said are reviewed for clear error, while the ultimate legal question of breach remains reviewable de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by implying an above-Guidelines recommendation	The prosecutor’s phrase "at the least appropriate" meant the top-of-range was the minimum acceptable sentence—implying an above-guidelines variance; that violates the clause forbidding any suggestion of an upward variance	The remark was ambiguous; read in context it meant a top-of-range sentence was at least permissible/appropriate under § 3553(a), not a recommendation to vary upward	The district court’s factual finding that the prosecutor sought a high-end guidelines sentence (not an upward variance) was not clearly erroneous; no breach
Standard of review for what the prosecutor’s statement conveyed	De novo review of breach (as in some prior cases)	Subsidiary factual findings about what was said are historical facts reviewed for clear error; legal question of breach reviewed de novo	Clarified: appellate courts review underlying factual findings for clear error and the legal breach determination de novo

United States v. Warren, 8 F.4th 444 (6th Cir. 2021) (interpreting similar "in any way" no-variance promise and finding implied suggestion can breach the plea)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plea agreements are essentially contracts and must be enforced)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutorial promises in plea bargaining carry constitutional import)
Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984) (constitutional protections implicated by plea agreements)
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 960 (2018) (distinguishing historical fact findings from legal conclusions on appeal)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review for certain legal questions informed by factual findings)
United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2007) (contract interpretation focuses on reasonable understanding of terms)
United States v. Barnes, 278 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2002) (plea-agreement enforcement and constitutional considerations)
United States v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2000) (review of whether government breached plea agreement)
United States v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357 (3d Cir. 1989) (treating what parties said or did as historical facts reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Martin, 25 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 1994) (same)