context: Defense counsel's request for a downward variance constituted a clear violation of that agreement. Swisshelm thus received the benefit of the plea agreement -- the government's forbearance from seeking an above-Guidelines sentence -- but deprived the government of its corresponding bargained-for benefit -- Swisshelm's forbearance from seeking a below-Guidelines sentence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 257 F.3d 345, 345
citation_a.parenthetical: "By fashioning a sentence below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines based on the ... violation of ... the plea agreement, the district court denied the Government the benefit of its bargain."
citation_a.sentence: See Bowe, 257 F.3d at 345 (“By fashioning a sentence below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines based on the ... violation of ... the plea agreement, the district court denied the Government the benefit of its bargain.”); Alexander, 869 F.2d at 95 (reasoning that although the Supreme Court’s holding in Santobello was partly based on defendant’s constitutional rights, “it also relies on the fundamental principle that one party cannot be held to a bargain that the other party has breached”).
citation_b.signal: contra
citation_b.parenthetical: "Because these [constitutional] concerns do not abound when the defendant breach-' es an agreement, the reasoning in these cases [in which the government breached] is inapposite"
citation_b.sentence: Contra Bradstreet, 207 F.3d at 80 n.3 (“Because these [constitutional] concerns do not abound when the defendant breach-' es an agreement, the reasoning in these cases [in which the government breached] is inapposite”). Swisshelm argues that the breach was only technical and not material because it did not affect the district court’s judgment, but on this record we conclude that the breach was material, prejudicial, and not harmless.