United States v. Ronald Moschella

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the government expressly “reserved the right to oppose any defense argument for a reduced sentence” in the plea agreement
• noting that “in arguing against a downward variance, the prosecutor affirmatively recommended three times that the district court impose the agreed-upon 33-month sentence”
• finding no implicit breach where the plea agreement permitted the parties to supplement the facts
• rejecting the defendant’s comparison of his case to Whitney and Mondragon “because here the plea agreement specifically authorized the government’s arguments”
• finding no implicit breach when the plea agreement permitted the parties to supplement the facts and the government’s arguments were made in response to the defendant’s request for a lower sentence
• distinguishing Canada in that the prosecutor recommended the agreed-upon range and made arguments at sentencing that “were directed to the specific objective identified in and permitted by the plea agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).