United States v. Mojica-Ramos, 103 F.4th 844

Yavier Mojica-Ramos pled guilty to unlawful possession of two machineguns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) while serving supervised release for a prior federal firearm offense.
Mojica entered a plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend a sentence within the guideline range (calculated to be 37-46 months).
At sentencing, the government presented extensive photo and video evidence from Mojica’s cellphone purporting to show involvement with drugs and firearms, and labeled his conduct as "exceptional" and a threat to public safety.
The district court imposed an upwardly variant sentence of 72 months for the § 922(o) offense and a 60-month consecutive revocation sentence (statutory maximum), both above the applicable guideline ranges.
Mojica objected, claiming prosecutorial breach of the plea agreement, arguing the government’s advocacy impliedly sought an above-guidelines sentence; his objections were overruled, and he timely appealed.

Issue	Mojica's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached plea deal	Gov't's sentencing presentation subverted agreement	Gov't technically recommended within-guidelines sentence	Government breached by implicitly advocating for upward variance
Use of uncharged conduct/facts at sentencing	Gov't improperly urged court to rely on unproven conduct	Obligation to provide context/relevant facts to sentencing	Gov't improperly encouraged consideration of unproven conduct
Remedy for breach	Both sentences should be vacated, specific sentences imposed	No basis to vacate revocation, no need for specific sentence	Both sentences vacated, remanded for resentencing before new judge
Duty to disclose versus advocacy	Gov’t’s duty to disclose facts does not override plea promise	Disclosure was required for candor and public safety concerns	Candor does not excuse subverting plea agreement’s agreed limits

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (Prosecutor must fulfill all promises in plea agreements)
United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (Breach found where government's conduct encouraged higher sentence than agreed)
United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9 (Government cannot act in ways that implicitly repudiate plea agreement promises)
United States v. Almonte-Nuñez, 771 F.3d 84 (Prosecutor held to meticulous performance standards in plea deals)
United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (Duty of candor does not permit circumventing plea agreement obligations)
United States v. Rivera-Ruiz, 43 F.4th 172 (Sentencing court may not rely on uncharged conduct without preponderant proof)