Clarifying the Scope of “Underlying and Related Conduct” in Plea Agreements

Introduction

United States v. Muhammad, 24-10113 & 24-10116 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), presents a pivotal interpretation of plea‐agreement promises by the government not to bring “additional charges based upon the conduct underlying and related to the defendant’s plea of guilty.” Twin brothers Elijah and Kareem Muhammad pled guilty in the Northern District of Texas to drug and ammunition offenses under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Subsequently, they were federally indicted on sex-trafficking charges spanning multiple states and years. The defendants moved to dismiss the sex-trafficking indictment, arguing a breach of their earlier plea agreements. The district court denied relief, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. This commentary explores the facts, the court’s reasoning, cited precedents, and the decision’s implications for future plea negotiations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit held, by a vote of three judges, that:

The promise not to bring additional charges was limited to those “based upon the conduct underlying and related to” the brothers’ guilty pleas in the drug and ammunition cases.
The subsequent sex-trafficking charges, involving different timeframes (2011–2023 vs. early 2023), numerous locations (Texas, California, Nevada vs. a single county), additional co-defendants, and distinct statutory offenses, fell outside the scope of the plea-agreement promise.
The district court’s findings as to temporal, geographic, and statutory distinctions were not clearly erroneous; thus, no breach occurred.
The judgment of the district court denying the motions to dismiss was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2017): Interpreting identical plea-agreement language, the court held that new charges were not barred where they arose from conduct temporally and geographically distinct and involved different statutes and co-conspirators.

2. United States v. Ramirez, 555 F. App’x 315 (5th Cir. 2014): Upheld cocaine‐distribution charges (2006–2011) after a methamphetamine plea (2007–2009), noting distinct time frames, co-defendants, substances, and locations.

3. United States v. Bevill, 611 F. App’x 180 (5th Cir. 2015): Permitted subsequent fraud charges based on different means and victims, despite similarity in the general offense.

4. United States v. Thomas, 58 F.4th 964 (8th Cir. 2023): Distinguished on plea-agreement wording; not relied upon because the operative language differed materially.

Legal Reasoning

Contract‐Law Principles: The Fifth Circuit applies standard contract‐interpretation rules to plea agreements. When language is unambiguous, courts look only to the four corners of the document.
Plain Language of the Promise: The pledge covered only charges “based upon the conduct underlying and related to” the guilty pleas. The unambiguous text confined the government’s promise to the exact drug and ammunition offenses, not to related investigations or broader conduct.
No Clear Error on Factual Findings: The district court found (1) the sex-trafficking offenses began over a decade earlier and spanned multiple states; (2) the drug offenses occurred in early 2023 in a single county; (3) the statutory offenses and co-defendants differed. Under the clear-error standard, those findings stand.
Contextual Confirmation: Neither presentence reports nor sentencing considerations included sex-trafficking conduct, and below‐guidelines sentences were imposed. This demonstrates the parties’ shared understanding that the plea deals did not cover human-trafficking charges.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision provides clarity on the scope of governmental promises in plea agreements:

Pleading defendants should carefully review the wording of “related conduct” clauses to understand exactly which offenses are excluded from prosecution.
Prosecutors can rely on precise, unambiguous language to confine their non-prosecution promises, while still preserving the right to pursue separate, more serious or distinct offenses.
Courtrooms will see fewer disputes over investigatory overlap; the focus will remain strictly on the plea-agreement text and whether subsequent charges fall within its plain scope.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plea Agreement (Rule 11(c)(1)(C)): A negotiated deal between defendant and government, specifying an agreed sentence if the court accepts it.
“Underlying and Related Conduct” Clause: A promise not to prosecute the defendant for the same or overlapping acts forming the basis of the plea.
De Novo Review vs. Clear-Error Standard: Legal conclusions (breach of contract) are reviewed anew by the appellate court, but factual findings (temporal/geographic scope) are upheld unless clearly erroneous.
Deconfliction Process: Law-enforcement coordination procedure to prevent agents from interfering with each other’s investigations.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard requiring that a fact be more likely true than not for the defendant to prove a breach.

Conclusion

United States v. Muhammad reaffirms that plea-agreement promises extend only to the specific conduct admitted in open court and described in the agreement. By emphasizing plain contractual language and respecting clear-error review of factual findings, the Fifth Circuit confirmed that government pledges not to bring additional charges do not immunize defendants from distinct offenses—even if investigations overlap. This ruling will shape how practitioners draft, negotiate, and litigate plea agreements in federal court, ensuring both precision in drafting and predictability in enforcement.