United States v. Molina-Quintero, 681 F. App'x 23

Molina pleaded guilty under a nonbinding plea agreement resolving two indictments; the agreement stipulated a total offense level of 33 and called for the parties to jointly recommend a sentence at the lower end of the applicable guideline range for the drug counts and a consecutive 60-month term for the firearm count.
The plea agreement forecast guideline ranges for criminal-history categories I–III but did not fix Molina’s criminal-history category.
The presentence report assessed a 2-level protected-location enhancement and calculated Molina as Criminal History Category II, producing a 151–188 month range.
At sentencing the prosecutor initially misstated the government’s recommendation as the higher end of the guideline range, then promptly corrected herself in court, withdrawing the misstated recommendation and confirming the agreed-to recommendation for the lower end.
Molina’s counsel objected to the initial misstatement but did not object after the prosecutor’s immediate correction, nor did he request resentencing before a different judge; the district court imposed concurrent 188-month sentences on the drug counts (top of the calculated range) and a consecutive 60 months on the firearm count.
Molina appealed, arguing the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by initially recommending the high end and that the breach required vacatur and resentencing before a different judge; the government argued any misstatement was cured or not a breach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s initial misstatement that she would seek the higher end of the guideline range breached the plea agreement and warranted resentencing before a different judge	Molina: The misstatement breached the plea agreement and, under pre-Puckett precedent, could not be cured by a belated correction; resentencing is required	Government: The misstatement was immediately corrected in open court, curing any breach; Molina failed to preserve a timely objection and thus review is for plain error	Court: Reviewed for plain error and held correction cured any error; no plain error shown; affirmed sentence
Proper standard of review for unpreserved claim that plea agreement was breached	Molina: De novo review	Government: Plain-error review because Molina did not assert the misstatement was incurable or request relief below	Court: Applied plain-error review and found error was not plain or prejudicial

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (some plea-agreement breaches may be cured by timely objection and correction)
Oppenheimer-Torres v. United States, 806 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (discussing cure of prosecutor’s misstatements under Puckett)
United States v. Kurkculer, 918 F.2d 295 (1st Cir. 1990) (pre-Puckett rule treating prosecutor misstatements as incurable breaches)
United States v. Torres–Rosario, 658 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2011) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Alejandro-Montañez, 778 F.3d 352 (1st Cir. 2015) (discussing Amendment 782 retroactive offense-level reductions)