Oral Colloquy Cannot Implicitly Amend a Binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement:
Commentary on United States v. Sherman Threets (7th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Sherman Threets addresses a recurring tension in federal criminal practice: when, if ever, can statements made during a change-of-plea hearing alter the plain language of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement? Defendant Sherman Threets, convicted of leading a heroin and methamphetamine conspiracy, contended on appeal that a discussion during his plea colloquy effectively modified his binding agreement, lowering the agreed sentencing range from 120–180 months to 93–153 months to account for 27 months he had already served on state revocation sentences.

The Seventh Circuit held that no modification occurred: the written agreement controlled, the district court remained free to decline credit for the state time, and the imposed 180-month sentence stood. Though designated “non-precedential,” the ruling crystallises an important principle: oral assurances or hypothetical discussions at a plea hearing do not, without unmistakable intent, rewrite a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) contract.

Summary of the Judgment

• The written plea agreement fixed a sentencing range of 120–180 months.
• During the plea colloquy, counsel and the court discussed the possibility of making the federal sentence concurrent with, or reduced by, the 27-month state revocation term. No explicit amendment was placed on the record.
• At sentencing, the district court imposed 180 months, refused to credit the 27 months, and emphasised that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would handle any administrative credit.
• On appeal, Threets alleged breach of a modified agreement. The Seventh Circuit rejected the claim, finding:
  • No contractual modification or promise of credit occurred.
  • The district judge properly exercised discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3.
  • The sentence was within both the statutory minimum and the agreed Rule 11(c)(1)(C) range.
• Judgment: Affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Filzen, 991 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2021) – Reiterates that once a court accepts a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, it is bound by the stipulated sentence or range.
• United States v. Colbert, 54 F.4th 521 (7th Cir. 2022) – Confirms that plea agreements are interpreted using ordinary contract principles.
• United States v. Lewis, 842 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2016) – Provides the de novo standard for reviewing alleged breaches of plea agreements.
• United States v. Cruz, 595 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) – Holds that a court cannot impose a concurrent sentence when the prior term has been completely served; key to rejecting Threets’s concurrency argument.
• United States v. Orozco-Sanchez, 814 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2016) – Affirms district court discretion to decline concurrency or credit even when § 5G1.3 might allow it.

Legal Reasoning of the Seventh Circuit

1. Plea Agreements as Contracts. The court treated the written Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement as a contract. Because it contained no term guaranteeing concurrency or a 27-month reduction, there was nothing to enforce beyond the 120–180-month range.
2. No Objective Manifestation of Amendment. Under contract law, a modification requires mutual assent. The plea-hearing dialogue was aspirational (“we would be arguing …”), not a bilateral commitment. Thus, no “meeting of the minds” occurred.
3. Discretion Under § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. The district court retained discretion to determine concurrence or credit. Because the state sentences were fully served before federal sentencing, concurrence was legally unavailable (Cruz). A downward departure was permissible but not mandatory; the judge chose not to grant it.
4. Statutory Minimum Fenced the Court In. Even if the judge had wanted to give additional credit, he could not have sentenced below the 120-month mandatory minimum for the § 841(b)(1)(A) count.

Impact on Future Cases and Plea Negotiations

• Clear Drafting Imperative. Defense and government counsel must expressly incorporate any expected concurrency, credit, or range adjustments into the written Rule 11(c)(1)(C) document; silence will be construed against modification.
• Limited Reliance on Oral Statements. Defendants cannot rely on informal colloquy comments to reshape plea bargains. Courts will view such remarks as non-binding unless they unequivocally show assent to a new term.
• Preserves Judicial Discretion. The decision reinforces that even when the government recommends concurrency, the district court may decline, so long as it remains within statutory and contractual boundaries.
• Guidance on § 5G1.3 Departures. By upholding the refusal to apply a discharged-sentence credit, the opinion signals that downward departures under § 5G1.3(b) & (c) remain discretionary tools, not entitlements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement: A negotiated plea in which the parties agree to a specific sentence or range. Once the court accepts the agreement, it must impose a sentence within the stipulated parameters or reject the deal entirely.
• Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences: Concurrent sentences run at the same time; consecutive sentences run back-to-back. § 3584(a) gives judges discretion, but if one sentence has already been completely served, true concurrency is impossible.
• Relevant Conduct & § 5G1.3: If prior state conduct is “relevant” to the federal offense, § 5G1.3 permits—but does not require—courts to credit or align sentences. Departures under subsections (b) or (c) are discretionary.
• Discharged Sentence Credit: When a defendant has fully served another sentence, the court may, but need not, lower the new sentence to avoid punishment overlap. The Sentencing Guidelines treat this as a downward departure, never a right.
• Statutory Minimum: 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) imposes a 10-year (120-month) floor. A judge cannot go below that floor absent specific statutory exceptions (e.g., safety-valve, substantial assistance), none of which applied to Threets.

Conclusion

United States v. Sherman Threets underscores a deceptively simple but critical doctrine: a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement means exactly what its written terms say, no more and no less. Casual references by counsel or the court during a plea colloquy—however hopeful—do not constitute a binding modification absent express and mutual assent memorialised on the record. The Seventh Circuit’s affirmation preserves judicial discretion over § 5G1.3 credits, prevents defendants from leveraging ambiguous discussions into new contractual rights, and reinforces precise drafting as the surest path to predictable sentencing outcomes. For practitioners, the lesson is unequivocal: if a concession, credit, or concurrency term matters, put it in the plea agreement—or risk losing it entirely.