Candor Over Silence: Eleventh Circuit Holds that Government May Reveal Post-Plea Misconduct Without Breaching a Low-End Recommendation—Recruitment Alone Triggers §3B1.1(c) Leadership Enhancement

Introduction

The appeal in United States v. Thomas Charles Bridges, No. 24-11909 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2025) presented three intertwined sentencing issues:

Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that Thomas Bridges continued committing bank-fraud acts while on pre-trial release;
Whether the Government’s disclosure of that new misconduct breached a plea agreement that obligated it to recommend a low-end Guidelines sentence; and
Whether a two-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c) was proper where the defendant’s primary “leadership” conduct was recruiting accomplices.

Bridges had pleaded guilty to a single conspiracy count in exchange for dismissal of remaining charges and the Government’s promise to recommend a low-end sentence. After the probation office calculated an advisory range of 51–63 months, the District Court upward-varied to 96 months, principally because Bridges’ fingerprint and iCloud messages tied him to a fresh stolen-check caper during pre-trial release and because it found he had a leadership role in the original conspiracy.

Summary of the Judgment

Sitting on the non-argument calendar, the Eleventh Circuit (Judges Jordan, Luck, and Tjoflat, per curiam) affirmed in full. In three discrete holdings, the Court ruled that:

The District Court’s factual finding of continued misconduct was not clearly erroneous; the fingerprint evidence and iCloud messages were “sufficiently reliable” to meet the Government’s preponderance burden.
The Government did not breach the plea agreement. A prosecutor may simultaneously recommend the bargained-for low-end sentence and disclose aggravating facts to assist the court’s §3553(a) analysis; doing so fulfills both the agreement and the Government’s duty of candor.
A defendant who recruits participants into a check-fraud operation qualifies as an “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” under §3B1.1(c); recruitment by itself shows the requisite control or influence.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) – Established that the Government must honor plea promises. Bridges invoked it by analogy, but the panel distinguished situations where the Government adds an unsolicited recommendation (a Santobello breach) from those where it merely supplies truthful information.
United States v. Boatner, 966 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1992) and United States v. Carrazana, 921 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991) – Both allow prosecutors to disclose pertinent sentencing facts even when promising a particular recommendation, provided the plea language reserves that right. The plea in Bridges did exactly that (“both parties are free to allocute fully”).
United States v. Malone, 51 F.4th 1311 (11th Cir. 2022) – Held the Government breached where it recommended the agreed sentence but then argued it was inadequate. The Court contrasted Malone, stressing that here the Government never undermined its own low-end request.
United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2018), United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2009), and commentary to §3B1.1 – Provide the multifactor test for a leadership role; the panel extracted “recruitment of accomplices” as a stand-alone basis.

B. Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review – Clear Error
Factual findings at sentencing survive unless “definite and firm conviction” of mistake exists. The fingerprint and digital messages were objective and timing-specific, exceeding the preponderance threshold.
Plea-Agreement Construction
The Court applied contract principles, reading the agreement as containing two co-equal promises from the Government: (i) recommend low-end; (ii) retain full allocution rights. Because §3661 bars courts from limiting information at sentencing, any contrary reading would be illegal as well as illogical. Thus disclosure ≠ breach.
§3B1.1(c) Leadership Enhancement
Emphasizing the Guidelines’ “organizer” language, the panel reasoned that persuading or enticing others to join the fraudulent enterprise is itself an exercise of authority, influence, and planning—attributes of leadership. The opinion adds that Bridges’ additional acts (obtaining printer, magnetic ink, multiple deposits) bolstered the finding, but importantly pronounces that “recruitment alone qualifies.”

C. Impact of the Decision

Plea Negotiations: Prosecutors and defense lawyers within the Eleventh Circuit must draft clauses with extreme clarity. If the defendant’s aim is to gag the Government from offering negative facts, that must be explicitly bargained for—otherwise, the prosecutor’s duty of candor prevails.
Sentencing Advocacy: The opinion invites U.S. Attorneys to reveal post-plea or post-release misconduct without fear of breaching standard low-end or “no-object” agreements, so long as they do not affirmatively disown their recommendation.
Aggravating-Role Litigation: Defense arguments that “recruitment alone is not leadership” will face steeper odds. Future litigants must now show an absence of control or influence even where recruitment is admitted.
Upward Variances: Judges possess wide berth to vary upward based on new misconduct; Bridges underscores that §3553(a) factors can trump Guidelines adherence where a defendant demonstrates recidivist tendencies in real time.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear-Error Review: An appellate standard giving heavy deference to trial-level fact finding; reversal occurs only if the appellate court is firmly convinced a mistake was made.
Preponderance of the Evidence: More likely than not (>50%) that the fact is true; the lowest burden in the legal spectrum, common at sentencing.
Plea Agreement “Allocution” Clause: A provision letting each side speak freely to the judge. Unless waived, it allows prosecutors to discuss both helpful and harmful facts.
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c) Enhancement: Adds two offense-levels when the defendant acts as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of any criminal activity (no minimum number of participants required under subsection (c)).
18 U.S.C. §3661: Statutory rule that a sentencing court may consider “no limitation” on information regarding the defendant’s background, character, and conduct.

Conclusion

United States v. Bridges crystallizes two practical rules in Eleventh Circuit sentencing law:

The Government’s duty of candor to the court allows, and may require, disclosure of fresh misconduct—even when the plea deal commits the prosecutor to advocate a lenient sentence—so long as the prosecutor does not renounce the promised recommendation.
Recruiting accomplices is sufficient, standing alone, to warrant the two-level leadership enhancement under §3B1.1(c); additional managerial acts merely strengthen the case.

These holdings reinforce transparency at sentencing and sharpen the contours of “leadership” under the Guidelines, influencing plea-bargaining strategies, prosecutorial conduct, and judicial discretion within the Circuit and potentially beyond.