United States v. Rosa Hernandez-Castro, 814 F.3d 1044

Hernandez‑Castro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and agreed in her plea agreement to a stipulated Guidelines range (57–71 months if CHC I) and to specific guideline calculations including a four‑level fast‑track departure and a two‑level minor‑use enhancement.
At sentencing the PSR rejected the two‑level minor‑use enhancement; the district court therefore did not apply it.
The district court applied only a two‑level fast‑track departure (stating it was based on the government’s motion even though the government had not filed one) and then granted an additional two‑level downward variance tied to a contemplated Drug Quantity Table amendment, yielding an offense level of 23 and a guideline range of 46–57 months.
The government recommended a sentence at the low end of that range; the court imposed 46 months.
Hernandez‑Castro moved under Rule 35 (denied) and appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by not securing or insisting on the four‑level fast‑track departure and thus her appellate waiver should be unenforceable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by failing to secure a four‑level fast‑track departure	Government failed to obtain or insist on the agreed four‑level fast‑track departure, breaching the agreement	Plea language was a stipulation of guideline calculations, not a government promise to move or recommend a four‑level departure; government did not act contrary to the agreement	No breach; plain‑error review finds no error
Whether Hernandez‑Castro’s appellate waiver is unenforceable due to alleged breach	Waiver invalid because government breached plea terms	Waiver stands because no breach occurred and sentence was within/stated to be below the stipulated range with court variance	Waiver enforceable; appeal dismissed
Appropriate standard of review for the breach claim	(Implied) de novo review preferred by plaintiff citing prior precedent	Appellate court applies plain‑error review because no objection was made at sentencing	Plain‑error review applies; no plain error found
Relevance of government’s sentencing recommendation	Government’s failure to recommend the four‑level departure shows breach	Government recommended a low‑end sentence of a range even more favorable than plea stipulation, supporting no breach	Recommendation favored defendant; not a breach

United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478 (9th Cir.) (appeal waiver enforceable when sentence falls within plea agreement cap)
United States v. Medina‑Carrasco, 806 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2015) ("in accordance with" language requires only that ultimate sentence fall within agreement’s broad range)
United States v. Gonzalez, 16 F.3d 985 (9th Cir.) (government breach of plea agreement releases defendant from appellate waiver)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error standard applies when sentencing objection not preserved)
United States v. Camarillo‑Tello, 236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001) (government breached plea by failing to make promised fast‑track recommendation and by endorsing a lesser recommendation)