1. Whether the Government's deviation from the agreed $65,000 restitution figure in a binding plea agreement—by recommending and securing a $125,000 restitution order based solely on unverified "broker estimates"—violated the promise of good faith and fair dealing required under Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), and United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453 (1985).

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that any breach of the plea agreement did not affect Petitioner's substantial rights where the record shows the district court relied on the Government's misrepresentation in determining restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

3. Whether the Eleventh Circuit's decision conflicts with other circuits' rulings by declining to apply the clarified "average participant" standard set forth in Amendment 821, Part B, to U.S.S.G. §3B1.2, where Petitioner played a lesser role than the leader but received a nearly identical sentence.

Whether the Government's deviation from an agreed $65,000 restitution figure in a binding plea agreement by recommending and securing a $125,000 restitution order based on unverified broker estimates violated the promise of good faith and fair dealing required under Santobello v. New York and United States v. Benchimol, and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that any breach did not affect Petitioner's substantial rights where the district court relied on the Government's misrepresentation in determining restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act