United States v. Michael Lermos-Hernandez, 16-17146

Lermos-Hernandez pleaded guilty in 2016 to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft; his plea included a cooperation clause promising he would "cooperate fully" and the government would "consider" whether his cooperation constituted substantial assistance before sentencing.
The plea agreement specified that if cooperation qualified as substantial assistance the government could file a §5K1.1 or §3553(e) motion (both discretionary).
After earlier pre-plea conduct (cutting off an ankle monitor and committing further fraud), Lermos-Hernandez provided information to the government but largely repeated known facts and withheld names of other participants.
At sentencing the government described his cooperation in detail, concluded it was not substantial assistance, and declined to file a motion; it also remarked the cooperation clause had been included at Lermos-Hernandez’s request and “not because the government thought it was viable.”
Lermos-Hernandez appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by failing to consider whether his cooperation warranted a substantial-assistance motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by failing to consider whether Lermos-Hernandez's cooperation qualified as substantial assistance	Lermos-Hernandez asserts the government's remark that the cooperation provision was included “not because the government thought it was viable” shows it never actually considered his cooperation for a §5K1.1/§3553(e) motion	Government argues the clause merely explained why the provision was included (at the defendant's request) and the record shows the government did evaluate the substance of his cooperation and reasonably concluded it was not substantial assistance	Affirmed: no breach; objective record shows government considered the cooperation and legitimately declined to move for a reduced sentence

United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (de novo review of whether government breached a plea agreement)
United States v. Taylor, 77 F.3d 368 (11th Cir. 1996) (government must honor material promises that induced a guilty plea)
United States v. Hunter, 835 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2016) (objective standard: evaluate government conduct against defendant's reasonable understanding)
United States v. Boatner, 966 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1992) (breach judged by defendant's reasonable understanding at time of plea)
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992) (§5K1.1 and §3553(e) create government discretion to file a substantial-assistance motion)