I. Whether an explicit breach of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement can be excused or "cured" by surrounding advocacy or contextual "bookending," in conflict with Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), and the approaches of the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits?

II. Whether, in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) case, the government satisfies its obligation to present a "united front" for the agreed cap when it affirmatively states to the court that it cannot oppose a higher sentence outside the agreement, thereby undermining the accept or reject structure of Rule 11(c)(1)(C)?

III. Whether a court of appeals applying plain error review under Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009), may deny relief for an explicit plea breach by pointing to aggravating facts and hypothesizing the same sentence would have been imposed, in conflict with Santobello's holding that the remedy does not turn on whether the sentencing judge would have imposed the same term absent the breach?

Whether an explicit breach of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement can be excused by surrounding advocacy in conflict with Santobello v. New York, and whether courts of appeals may deny relief by hypothesizing the same sentence would have been imposed absent the breach