United States v. Raul Franco-Lopez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the government’s conduct amounted to a breach of the plea agreement because the government “affirmatively recommended to the Department that ‘role enhancements were considered appropriate.’ ”
• noting, but declining to resolve, the standard of review inconsistency regarding interpretation of plea agreements because “[w]hichever standard we apply, we reach the same conclusion”
• recognizing \the case law uniformly requires sentencing by a different judge\
• remanding for further specification where “the record contain[ed] no indication of what [defendant] actually said in his debriefing, so neither we nor the district court are in any position to judge his truthfulness.”
• “[W]e prefer a contractual interpretation that gives some effect to the government’s apparent promises contained in the agreement[.]”
• courts enforce literal terms of plea agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).