Enforceability of Appeal Waivers and Non-Binding Plea Stipulations under Rule 11(c)(1)(B)

Introduction

United States v. Derrick Kellen Mitchell, decided by the Sixth Circuit on April 28, 2025, clarifies two interrelated principles in criminal plea practice: the enforceability of appellate‐waiver clauses and the non-binding nature of plea‐agreement stipulations made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B). The defendant, Derrick Mitchell, pleaded guilty to drug-trafficking and money-laundering charges pursuant to a plea agreement that waived his right to appeal unless he received an above-Guidelines sentence. At sentencing, the district court imposed a below-Guidelines term and applied a firearms enhancement that the parties had “stipulated” would not apply. Mitchell nonetheless sought to appeal, arguing (1) his plea was invalid and (2) the government breached the terms of the bargain. The Sixth Circuit held that the plea was valid and the waiver enforceable, and that no breach occurred.

Key parties:

Plaintiff-Appellee: United States of America
Defendant-Appellant: Derrick Kellen Mitchell
District Judge: Katherine A. Crytzer (E.D. Tenn.)
Panel: Sutton, Chief Judge; Siler and White, Circuit Judges

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit dismissed Mitchell’s appeal under the plea agreement’s appellate waiver. Mitchell had waived any right to appeal unless the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence; the court instead imposed a below-Guidelines term. Mitchell contended two voids: (1) his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because he misunderstood the stipulation’s binding effect, and (2) the government failed to honor its promise not to seek additional enhancements. Applying plain-error review, the court concluded:

The district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11’s procedures, ensuring Mitchell’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
Plea stipulations under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) are non-binding recommendations, a point clearly explained at plea colloquy.
The government made no enforceable promise beyond what Rule 11(c)(1)(B) permits and therefore did not breach the agreement.

Because the waiver was valid and no breach occurred, Mitchell’s appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Several precedents undergird the court’s decision:

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970): A plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary with awareness of relevant circumstances and consequences.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c): Establishes two types of plea-agreement stipulations:
- 11(c)(1)(B): Non-binding recommendations to the court.
- 11(c)(1)(C): Binding agreements that the court may accept or reject.
United States v. Catchings, 708 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2013): Emphasizes Rule 11’s safeguards.
United States v. Presley, 18 F.4th 899 (6th Cir. 2021): Plain-error review standards for unpreserved Rule 11 errors.
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc): Four-factor plain-error test.
Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017): Courts may disregard “post hoc” assertions of misunderstanding.
United States v. Sharp, 442 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2006): No need to inquire separately about every adequately explained term.
Swanberg v. United States, 370 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2004): Government must live up to plea-agreement promises to enforce a waiver.
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002): Prosecutors have no constitutional obligation to disclose every piece of impeachment material during plea negotiations.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two steps: 1. Validity of the Plea and Enforceability of the Waiver:

The district court meticulously followed Rule 11, explaining every consequence, including that the stipulations under 11(c)(1)(B) “are only recommendations and do not bind the court” and that Mitchell could not withdraw his plea if the court declined to follow them.
Mitchell affirmed his understanding of the waiver, his right to trial, the possible sentence ranges, and the non-binding nature of his plea stipulations.
Under plain-error review, the court found no “obvious” Rule 11 error affecting Mitchell’s substantial rights or the proceedings’ integrity.

2. Alleged Government Breach:

The plea agreement explicitly invoked Rule 11(c)(1)(B), signaling non-binding stipulations.
Another clause confirmed that “no promises” were made as to the ultimate sentence.
Mitchell offered no contemporaneous objection when the probation office proposed—and the court adopted—the firearms enhancement.
Even had the government formally joined an objection, the enhancement was plainly applicable to undisputed facts; no prejudice ensued.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important lessons for practitioners and defendants:

Plea bargain drafters must clearly distinguish between 11(c)(1)(B) recommendations and 11(c)(1)(C) binding stipulations if they wish to bind a court to specified terms.
Defense counsel should ensure that every plea colloquy explicitly records the defendant’s understanding of non-binding stipulations and waiver consequences.
Appellate waivers remain powerful tools to foster finality but will not shield defendants from plain-error issues raised on appeal when a plea was invalid or the government clearly breached its undertakings.
Mitchell underscores that courts will enforce valid waivers even when defendants later regret the bargain, provided Rule 11 requirements are satisfied and no breach occurs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 11(c)(1)(B) vs. 11(c)(1)(C):

11(c)(1)(B) allows parties to agree on sentencing-related facts or recommendations, but the judge may accept or reject them without permitting plea withdrawal.
11(c)(1)(C) binds the court if it accepts the agreement; the defendant may withdraw if the court rejects it.

Plain-Error Review: A four-part test requiring a showing of (1) an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) that affected substantial rights (usually prejudice), and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

United States v. Mitchell cements the principle that appellate waivers in plea agreements are enforceable when entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily under Rule 11. It also clarifies that stipulations under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) are mere recommendations that do not bind the sentencing court. Prosecutors and defense counsel alike should heed these rulings when negotiating, drafting, and litigating plea agreements to ensure clarity, avoid unintended breaches, and safeguard defendants’ appellate rights where appropriate.