1. Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the government's high-end sentencing recommendation —contrary to the terms of the plea agreement following Amendment 782—constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby depriving Morales-Velez of the benefits of the negotiated plea agreement and resulting in an excessively harsh sentence under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2. Whether the sentencing court's failure to explicitly apply the discretionary principles established in Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) —specifically, the ability to consider mandatory minimum sentences imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when determining sentences for predicate offenses —warrants remand to ensure a proportionate and fair sentence consistent with § 3553(a) and the individualized sentencing objectives articulated in Dean.

Whether defense counsel's failure to object to a sentencing recommendation constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington