Limits of Plea Agreement Charge Bars: Temporal, Geographic, and Statutory Distinctions Doctrine

Introduction

This commentary examines the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Muhammad, No. 24-10113 & 24-10116 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), which resolves whether the government breached plea-agreement promises not to bring “additional charges based upon the conduct underlying and related to” defendants’ earlier guilty pleas. Twin brothers Elijah and Kareem Muhammad had pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Texas to drug and ammunition offenses. Subsequently, they were indicted for decades-long sex-trafficking conduct spanning multiple states and involving new victims and co-defendants. The central issue is whether the subsequent sex-trafficking prosecution violated the plain terms of their plea agreements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the Muhammads’ motions to dismiss their sex-trafficking indictments. Relying on the unambiguous language of the plea agreements—promising not to charge “based upon the conduct underlying and related to” the drug and ammunition pleas—the court held that the sex-trafficking conduct was:

Temporally distinct (spanning from 2011 into 2023 vs. one discrete incident in early 2023),
Geographically distinct (multiple states and divisions vs. a single Fort Worth location),
Statutorily distinct (sex-trafficking statutes vs. drug and firearms statutes),
Involving additional co-conspirators not covered by the original pleas.

Because these differences placed the new charges outside the scope of “conduct underlying and related to” the original pleas, no breach occurred.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2017): Interpreted identical “conduct underlying and related to” language and upheld post-plea charges where the new conduct was temporally, geographically, and statutorily distinct.
United States v. Ramirez, 555 F. App’x 315 (5th Cir. 2014): Upheld cocaine charges after a methamphetamine plea, emphasizing different time frames, locations, substances, and co-defendants.
United States v. Bevill, 611 F. App’x 180 (5th Cir. 2015): Rejected bar on new fraud charges despite similarities in scheme, noting different victims and methods.
United States v. Thomas, 58 F.4th 964 (8th Cir. 2023): Cited by appellants but distinguished for materially different plea-agreement language.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied ordinary contract principles: if a plea agreement’s language is unambiguous, the court looks only to its “four corners.” Here, the promise applied narrowly to charges grounded in the same conduct as the drug and ammunition pleas. The Muhammad brothers’ reliance on the overlap of investigations was rejected because the promise focused on “conduct,” not on investigatory overlap or procedural deconfliction. The court deferred to the district judge’s factual findings—temporal span, geographic scope, statutory violations, and identity of co-defendants—absent clear error. Having found each factor sufficiently distinct, the appellate court concluded the new charges fell outside the agreed charge‐bar.

Impact

This decision reaffirms and sharpens the Fifth Circuit’s doctrinal approach to plea-agreement charge bars:

Defense counsel must negotiate clear, comprehensive language if they wish to preclude all future charges arising from broadly related conduct.
Prosecutors may rely on narrow “conduct-based” promise language to preserve the right to charge distinct criminal activity.
Court approval of plea agreements will increasingly hinge on precise drafting and express enumeration of covered charge categories.
Future litigants cannot successfully challenge subsequent indictments unless they demonstrate that the new charges fall squarely within the conduct described—regardless of investigatory overlap.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Conduct underlying and related to”: This phrase limits charge bars to the same factual actions admitted in the plea. New acts, even if part of a larger pattern, require their own charges unless specifically covered.
Plain‐language interpretation: When contract terms (including plea agreements) are clear on their face, courts do not consider outside evidence or supposed mutual expectations.
Clear‐error review: Appellate courts accept a trial court’s factual findings unless they are implausible or unsupported by the record.
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas: These are plea bargains where the defendant and government agree on a specific sentence; accepting such an agreement preserves appellate rights on collateral issues (like breach claims).

Conclusion

United States v. Muhammad underscores that plea agreements promising not to bring additional charges “based upon the conduct underlying and related to” an earlier guilty plea are construed narrowly. Temporal, geographic, statutory, and participant-based distinctions in subsequent conduct place new charges outside the scope of such promises. This doctrine safeguards prosecutorial flexibility while incentivizing precise drafting by defense counsel. Going forward, both sides must anticipate the full range of conduct they wish to include or exclude in plea-agreement language to avoid disputes over future indictments.