United States v. Rauso, 548 F. App'x 36

Gennaro Rauso pled guilty (2010) to multiple financial crimes (bank, credit card, tax, mortgage fraud, equity skimming) and agreed to an appellate waiver in his plea agreement.
Parties stipulated the loss exceeded $400,000 (14-level U.S.S.G. §2B1.1 enhancement) and there were >50 victims (4-level enhancement).
The plea agreement included a Government promise to "bring to the Court’s attention all facts relevant to sentencing" and to correct factual inaccuracies in the PSI.
The Probation Office recommended an additional 2-level identity-theft enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i); the Government agreed it should not apply but the District Court imposed it over Rauso’s objection.
Rauso was sentenced to 160 months (within a Guidelines range of 130–162 months) and appealed, arguing the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to correct PSI errors on loss and victim counts and challenging the identity-theft enhancement.
The Third Circuit held the appellate waiver enforceable, concluding the Government did not breach the plea agreement; thus Rauso’s appellate challenges were barred and the conviction/sentence were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Government breach the plea agreement by failing to correct PSI errors about loss amount and victim count?	Rauso: Government failed to correct inaccuracies at sentencing, so waiver unenforceable.	Gov: Parties had stipulated to loss and victim counts; Government had no duty to "fact-check" the PSI or probation testimony; later restitution adjustments were for restitution only.	Waiver enforceable; no breach—stipulations control, so Rauso's challenge barred.
Was the 2-level identity-theft enhancement properly applied over Rauso's objection?	Rauso: Enhancement inappropriate because use of inmates' identities (with permission) did not meet "unauthorized use" language.	Gov: (At sentencing) conceded enhancement should not apply; court nonetheless found enhancement appropriate.	Court did not reach merits because appellate waiver bars review; sentence affirmed.

United States v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357 (3d Cir. 1989) (Government breach can void appellate waiver)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2000) (plea agreements strictly construed against Government)
United States v. Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 1999) (defendant bound by factual stipulations in plea agreement)
McKeever v. Warden SCI–Graterford, 486 F.3d 81 (3d Cir. 2007) (plea agreements construed using contract principles)
United States v. Schwartz, 511 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2008) (interpret writings as a whole; no part ignored)