United States v. Munoz-Luquen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-3740
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3740 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-01276-RSH-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MARCO ANTONIO MUNOZ-LUQUEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Robert Steven Huie, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 18, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, BENNETT, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Marco Antonio Munoz-Luquen appeals the 57-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to importing methamphetamine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Munoz-Luquen argues that the prosecutor who appeared for

the government at the sentencing hearing implicitly breached the plea agreement by

(1) emphasizing the quantity of drugs involved in the offense; (2) distancing himself

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. from the 37-month recommendation made by the prosecutor who had negotiated the

agreement; (3) failing to state all “mitigation arguments” for the government’s

recommendations; and (4) declining to defend the parties’ jointly recommended

four-level fast-track reduction after the district court applied only a two-level

reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Even reviewing de novo, we agree with the district court that there was no breach of

the plea agreement.1 Thus, we enforce the appellate waiver in the plea agreement,

and we dismiss the appeal.

1. The prosecutor’s statements about drug quantity permissibly

highlighted an aspect of the offense in response to the district court’s concerns,

defense counsel’s remarks, and Munoz-Luquen’s request for a below-Guidelines,

24-month sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the judge first emphasized the drug

quantity in announcing his tentative position: “[B]ecause of the massive amount of

methamphetamine involved, my tentative is to impose a sentence above the

recommendation of the parties, just because of, again, the sheer volume of

methamphetamine we’re looking at in this case.” The district court noted that it was

1 “We have not been entirely consistent in our standards for reviewing a claim that the government breached a plea agreement.” United States v. Alcala-Sanchez, 666 F.3d 571, 575 (9th Cir. 2012) (collecting cases). “However, because the government argues that it did not implicitly breach its plea agreement with [Munoz- Luquen] under even a de novo standard, we do not resolve when a different standard of review may apply.” United States v. Plancarte, No. 24-327, 2025 WL 2394637, at *3 n.3 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025).

2 24-3740 “almost a ton of pure methamphetamine.” Defense counsel also emphasized the

quantity several times, stating at one point: “Obviously it was an incredible amount

of drugs in this case.” Moreover, the plea agreement provided that the government

would “oppose any downward adjustments, departures, or variances not set forth”

in the agreement. Because Munoz-Luquen had “argue[d] for a below-Guidelines

sentence, the government [could] oppose the defendant’s argument . . . including by

repeating facts in the [presentence report].” United States v. Plancarte, No. 24-327,

2025 WL 2394637, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025). The presentence report here also

noted the significant quantity of drugs involved in the offense. Thus, the prosecutor

did not breach the plea agreement by likewise referencing the “incredible amount”

of drugs.

2. The sentencing hearing transcript does not support that the prosecutor

distanced himself from the government’s recommendation. His characterization of

the 37-month recommendation as “more than fair” responded to Munoz-Luquen’s

request for a 24-month sentence, which the plea agreement provided that the

government would oppose. The prosecutor affirmatively made the 37-month

recommendation three times. Notably, the government’s commitment in the plea

agreement was to recommend a sentence between 37 and 46 months. So the 37-

month sentence was in fact “more than fair,” as the government could have

recommended a higher sentence than it did without breaching the agreement.

3 24-3740 3. Neither our precedent nor the plea agreement required the government

at the sentencing hearing to state all mitigation arguments underlying its

recommendation. “[T]he government is not required to present mitigating evidence

to avoid implicitly breaching a plea agreement.” Plancarte, 2025 WL 2394637, at

*5. Munoz-Luquen cites United States v. Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.

2001), but that case holds that the government’s sentencing memorandum must

“include all of the reasons underlying the recommendation as stated in the plea

agreement.” Id. at 1027 (emphasis added). The government’s sentencing

memorandum here did so.

4. No breach resulted from any failure to defend the jointly recommended

four-level fast-track reduction before the district court. Unlike in Camarillo-Tello,

the government did not change its recommendation mid-hearing. Id. at 1027–28.

And the plea agreement did not require the government to object if the district court

declined to follow any of its recommendations.

DISMISSED.

4 24-3740