United States v. Garcia-Toro

── United States v. Garcia-Toro ── Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. LUIS MIGUEL GARCÍA-TORRO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge, Thompson and Gelpí, Circuit Judges. Franco L. Pérez-Redondo, Assistant Federal Defender, with whom Rachel Brill, Federal Public Defender, was on brief, for appellant. Gregory Bennet Conner, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá- Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee. May 29, 2026  THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Overview Police busted García for having a machinegun while on supervised release for a similar weapons crime.1 He eventually pled guilty under a plea deal with the government to illegally possessing that gun. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).2 And as part of the agreement, he and the government promised to "seek a [prison] sentence within the applicable guideline[s] range" — a range that the judge set at 27 to 33 months (the deal also (i) barred García from arguing for a below-guidelines sentence and the government from pushing for an above-guidelines term and (ii) put the final sentencing decision in the judge's hands). García consistently asked for 27 months. The government repeatedly asked for 33 months. But the judge ultimately picked 48 months. A disappointed García now appeals, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement by giving "lip service" — and no more — "to its obligation to recommend a 1 García's full name appears in our caption (and we use "García," per Spanish-naming norms). 2 We take the facts from different materials before the district judge — including the indictment, the plea agreement, the uncontested parts of the presentence report, the sentencing memos, and the sentencing transcript. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz- Serrano, 77 F.4th 41, 44 (1st Cir. 2023); United States v. LeBlanc, 169 F.3d 94, 94 (1st Cir. 1999). - 2 - sentence between 27 and 33 months" (we'll explain the argument's ins and outs shortly). But we must affirm (for reasons we'll explain later too).3 Some Legal Basics A few legal principles set the stage for this opinion. 1 Plea agreements are contracts. See, e.g., United States v. Fargas-Reyes, 125 F.4th 264, 270 (1st Cir. 2025); United States v. Rivera-Cruz, 878 F.3d 404, 408 (1st Cir. 2017). And because defendants land plea deals only by waiving many constitutional rights (like their rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, and to testify), we hold prosecutors "to the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance." See Fargas-Reyes, 125 F.4th at 270 (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Lessard, 35 F.4th 37, 42 (1st Cir. 2022)). Which is why the law bans not only the explicit reneging of promises but also the implicit "end- runs around them." See United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Voccola, 600 F. Supp. 3 A couple FWIWs: García doesn't attack the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See generally United States v. Ponzo, 171 F.4th 507, 512 n.3 (1st Cir. 2026) (observing that a substant