United States v. Sandiford: Post-Plea Misconduct as “Adverse Information” —
Eleventh Circuit Holds Government May Revoke Acceptance-of-Responsibility Recommendations Without Breaching Plea Agreements

1. Introduction

The Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished opinion in United States v. Dustin Shane Sandiford (No. 23-13131, Jul. 1 2025) confronts two recurrent questions in federal criminal practice:

1. When does an unconditional guilty plea bar appellate review of pre-trial suppression rulings?
2. Under what circumstances may the Government withdraw or modify its sentencing promises—particularly its agreement to support a downward adjustment for “acceptance of responsibility”—without breaching a plea agreement?

Sandiford, charged with multiple child-pornography counts, entered an unconditional plea to production of child pornography. After sentencing, he appealed, challenging (i) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone and (ii) the Government’s alleged breach of the plea agreement by opposing a three-level “acceptance of responsibility” reduction and seeking a 30-year sentence. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court and, in doing so, crystallised a key principle: post-plea misconduct that is inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility qualifies as “adverse information” permitting the Government to revoke its promised recommendation without breaching the agreement.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Rosenbaum, J. Pryor, Brasher) held:

• Plea-based waiver: Sandiford’s unconditional, knowing, and voluntary guilty plea foreclosed appellate review of the suppression ruling. He failed to enter a written conditional plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
• No Government breach: (a) The plea agreement explicitly made the Government’s support for the two-level §3E1.1(a) reduction and its promise to move for the additional one-level §3E1.1(b) reduction contingent on the absence of “adverse information” suggesting the award was “unwarranted.”
  (b) Evidence that Sandiford solicited a third party to smuggle new child-pornography images into jail constituted such adverse information.
  (c) The Government therefore validly withdrew its support for the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and requested the obstruction-of-justice enhancement and a 360-month sentence.
  
• Sentence affirmed: The 360-month term was reasonable, and any Guidelines calculation disputes were harmless because the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence even with the three-level reduction.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 1997) — Unconditional pleas waive non-jurisdictional defects; a mistaken belief of preserved issues renders a plea involuntary only where that belief exists at the moment of the plea.
• United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2014) — Suppression issues are non-jurisdictional and waived by unconditional pleas.
• United States v. Tripodis, 94 F.4th 1257 (11th Cir. 2024) — Framework for determining government breach of plea agreements: identify promises and test conduct against a defendant’s reasonable understanding; silence does not create obligations.
• Guideline Authorities: U.S.S.G. §§3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility) and 3C1.1 (Obstruction of Justice).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a. Plea-Based Waiver Doctrine Reaffirmed

The Court underscored that Rule 11(a)(2) furnishes the sole mechanism for preserving suppression issues after a guilty plea. Sandiford’s contrary belief—formed only later during sentencing—did not vitiate the voluntariness of his plea, because he had been expressly warned by the magistrate judge that he was “giving up [his] right to challenge…the way the government obtained the evidence.”

b. Contractual Interpretation of the Plea Agreement

Applying Tripodis, the Court:

1. Identified the Government’s explicit promises: i) to “not oppose” the two-level §3E1.1(a) reduction, and ii) to file the §3E1.1(b) motion—both unless adverse information emerged.
2. Held that solicitation of new child pornography while incarcerated squarely constituted “adverse information.”
3. Noted that the agreement was silent on obstruction enhancements and specific sentence recommendations, leaving the Government free to seek both.

c. Sentencing Considerations

Even had the district court erred in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, the error was harmless under Dean-type reasoning because the court announced it would impose the same 360-month sentence.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Plea-Negotiation Dynamics: Defense counsel must now emphasise to clients within the Eleventh Circuit that post-plea conduct can void governmental concessions tied to acceptance of responsibility.
• Government Strategy: Prosecutors may confidently incorporate “adverse information” clauses and later rely on post-plea misconduct to withdraw sentencing concessions without risking breach allegations.
• Conditional Pleas: The decision reinforces the necessity of a written Rule 11(a)(2) plea if a defendant hopes to preserve suppression or other non-jurisdictional issues. District judges can cite Sandiford as authority when warning defendants.
• Guidelines Practice: Courts may treat continued criminal conduct as justification both to deny §3E1.1 credit and to apply §3C1.1 enhancements, potentially increasing effective sentencing ranges.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Unconditional vs. Conditional Plea: An unconditional guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt that waives most pre-trial objections; a conditional plea reserves specified issues for appeal but must be in writing and approved by the court and Government.
• Acceptance of Responsibility (§3E1.1): Up to a three-level reduction for defendants who clearly admit their conduct and cease obstructive behavior; not automatic, and post-plea conduct can forfeit it.
• Adverse Information Clause: Typical contractual sentence stipulation allowing the Government to rescind promised concessions if new facts suggest the defendant has not genuinely accepted responsibility.
• Obstruction of Justice (§3C1.1): A two-level enhancement for efforts to impede investigation or sentencing, such as deleting evidence or directing others to hide incriminating files.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Sandiford serves as a cautionary tale on two fronts. First, defendants must secure—and memorialize—conditional pleas if they intend to preserve suppression or other non-jurisdictional challenges for appeal; a post-plea realisation will not suffice. Second, plea agreements containing “adverse information” qualifiers empower the Government to withdraw support for sentencing reductions when defendants continue unlawful conduct after pleading guilty. The Eleventh Circuit’s endorsement of that practice provides prosecutors a clear roadmap and signals to defendants that any post-plea misconduct may carry heavy consequences, both in lost guideline credit and in expanded sentencing advocacy by the Government. Practitioners in the circuit should revise plea-bargaining strategies accordingly, recognising that acceptance of responsibility is a dynamic, continuing obligation—not a one-time box checked by entering a plea.