Clarifying the Scope of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreements: Specified Sentence Excludes Mandatory Supervised Release

Introduction

United States v. Adam H. Smith, decided by the Eleventh Circuit on January 13, 2025, addresses a recurring question in federal criminal practice: when a defendant and the government enter into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement specifying a “specific sentence not to exceed” a given term, does that cap apply to the total disposition (including mandatory supervised release), or only to the term of imprisonment?

Background: Adam H. Smith was indicted in the Southern District of Georgia on charges of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin, and alprazolam. He pleaded guilty, pursuant to a negotiated Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, to a lesser-included conspiracy count involving fentanyl. The agreement stipulated that the parties would jointly recommend—and the court could not exceed—a forty-eight-month prison term. Smith did not object at sentencing when the district court imposed 48 months’ imprisonment followed by the mandatory minimum three-year term of supervised release under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). On appeal, he argued for the first time that the 48-month cap covered the entire sentence and that the court should have split it as 12 months’ imprisonment plus 36 months’ supervised release. The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed that the binding “not to exceed 48 months” applied solely to incarceration and that the mandatory supervised release term lay outside that cap.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Using plain-error review, the court held:

The plea agreement’s language—“a specific sentence not to exceed forty-eight (48) months”—did not promise a total sentence (prison plus supervised release) of 48 months, but rather an imprisonment term capped at 48 months.
Mandatory supervised release under § 841(b)(1)(C) is statutory and separate from the agreed prison term.
Smith failed to demonstrate a plain (clear or obvious) error in the district court’s acceptance and implementation of the agreement.

The court therefore held that imposing 48 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release did not breach the binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008) – established the objective standard for interpreting plea agreements and the significance of integration clauses.
United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) – cautioned against hyper-technical or rigid literal readings of plea-agreement language.
United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) – held that unobjected Rule 11 errors are reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Sosa, 782 F.3d 630 (11th Cir. 2015) – clarified that plain error must be “clear or obvious” under Puckett.
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) – defined the four-prong plain-error standard in criminal cases, including plea-agreement breaches.
United States v. Tripodis, 94 F.4th 1257 (11th Cir. 2024) – confronted a similar challenge to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, albeit under de novo review.

These precedents collectively shape the interpretive framework: courts must read plea agreements in their entirety, apply an objective standard, and, when errors are unpreserved, limit relief to clear and obvious mistakes that affect substantial rights.

Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Agreements
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) permits plea bargains in which the government and defendant agree to recommend a specific sentence and the court may accept or reject the agreement. Once accepted, the court is bound by the agreed term. Here, the phrase “a specific sentence not to exceed forty-eight (48) months” was unqualified as to its application, but neither the plea agreement nor the written integration clause suggested that it encompassed supervised release.

2. Mandatory Statutory Supervised Release
Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), a term of supervised release of not less than three years is mandatory. That requirement exists independently of any plea agreement and cannot be modified by a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) bargain unless explicitly covered. The court explained during the plea colloquy that supervised release would attach after incarceration but made no promise to limit it within the 48-month cap.

3. Plain-Error Review
Because Smith did not object at sentencing to the three-year supervised release term, appellate review is confined to plain-error analysis. To prevail, Smith needed to show (i) an error, (ii) that was plain, (iii) affecting substantial rights, and (iv) seriously affecting the fairness of the proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit found no clear or obvious error, as the record—including the plea agreement’s text, the Rule 11 colloquy, the presentence report, and Smith’s own sentencing memorandum—consistently treated the 48-month cap as referring to imprisonment only.

Impact

This decision brings critical clarity to the structure of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea bargains:

Drafting Precision: Defense counsel and prosecutors should explicitly state whether a negotiated cap includes or excludes mandatory supervised release and other statutory components.
Plea Colloquy Emphasis: Judges must ensure that defendants understand the separate nature of imprisonment terms and supervised-release obligations.
Appellate Limitation: Unpreserved disputes over plea agreement scope will rarely succeed under plain error unless the wording is unequivocal.

More broadly, the case underscores that statutory sentencing requirements lie outside the reach of Rule 11 bargains unless expressly incorporated.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement: A plea in which the prosecutor and defendant agree to a particular sentence and ask the court to accept it. If the court accepts that agreement, it cannot impose a different sentence on the stipulated count.
Mandatory Supervised Release: A post-imprisonment period of supervision required by statute for certain offenses. It is separate from the term of imprisonment and carries its own minimum and maximum durations.
Plain-Error Review: An appellate standard applied when an error is not objected to at the trial level. The defendant must show a clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights and undermines the fairness of the proceeding.
Integration Clause: A contractual provision stating that the written agreement embodies all promises and understandings between the parties, precluding reliance on outside or informal commitments.

Conclusion

United States v. Adam H. Smith affirms that, absent explicit language to the contrary, a “specific sentence not to exceed” term negotiated under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) refers solely to the period of imprisonment and does not encompass mandatory statutory components such as supervised release. The decision reinforces the necessity for clear drafting and thorough plea colloquies, and it limits appellate relief for unpreserved plea-agreement disputes to only the clearest and most obvious mistakes. As such, this ruling will guide both practitioners and courts in structuring and interpreting binding plea agreements in federal criminal cases.