Francisco Rios-Munoz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a previously removed alien pursuant to a written plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. On appeal, Rios-Munoz argued for the first time that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to specify at the sentencing hearing that it recommended a sentence within the lower 50% of the applicable advisory guidelines range. The government moved to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver provision in the plea agreement.
The court applied a de novo standard to determine if the appeal waiver barred the appeal, finding the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Because Rios-Munoz did not allege a breach of the plea agreement in the district court, the court reviewed the claim for plain error only. Under this standard, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating a breach by a preponderance of the evidence. The court applied the principle that a government's obligation to recommend a particular sentence is satisfied if the presentence report includes that recommendation. Since the presentence report in this case referenced the government's recommendation, the court found no clear or obvious error, meaning Rios-Munoz could not meet the plain-error standard.
The district court's sentence stands. This decision reinforces that a government's sentencing recommendation obligation in a plea agreement can be satisfied through the presentence report, even if not explicitly stated at the sentencing hearing. It also clarifies that defendants must raise breach claims in the district court to avoid the heightened plain-error standard on appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download