Scope of Government’s Plea Promises and Restitution Authority Affirmed in US v. Jean-Gilles

Introduction

United States v. Kevin Jean-Gilles is a 2025 Eleventh Circuit decision upholding a 235-month sentence and a $125,000 restitution award against Mr. Jean-Gilles, who pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and fentanyl analogue in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). The defendant challenged four aspects of his disposition: (1) breach of the plea agreement, (2) procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence, (3) authority and calculation of the restitution order, and (4) inclusion of supervised release conditions not orally pronounced. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the panel—Judges Jordan, Luck, and Tjoflat—rejected each argument and affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s opinion addresses four challenges:

Plea-Agreement Breach: The Government’s promise to recommend “a sentence within the Guidelines as determined by the Court” was fulfilled when it endorsed the top of the adjusted Guidelines range (235 months). The plea term stating $65,000 in restitution did not bind the court, which relied on reliable evidence to award $125,000.
Sentence Reasonableness: The District Court properly adopted the Presentence Report’s drug-quantity findings, applied two-level downward variances (U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and general variance), and imposed a within-Guidelines term. The panel found no procedural or substantive error.
Restitution Authority and Amount: Under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) and 21 U.S.C. § 846, the court had authority to award restitution for property damage to the owner of the rented premises. The record supported the $125,000 figure.
Supervised Release Conditions: By orally referencing the Middle District of Florida’s publicly adopted standard conditions, the District Court satisfied due-process requirements—even though the written judgment listed those conditions verbatim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s reasoning drew on several key Eleventh Circuit authorities:

United States v. Malone, 51 F.4th 1311 (11th Cir. 2022) – Plain-error standard for plea-agreement breaches.
United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) – Interpreting the scope of Government promises in plea agreements.
United States v. Forbes, 888 F.2d 752 (11th Cir. 1989) – District courts may rely on PSIs over stipulations for sentencing facts.
United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 589 U.S. 169 (2020) – Abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness.
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010) – VWPA burden of proof for restitution.
United States v. Brown, 665 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2011) – Review standards for restitution orders.
United States v. Hayden, 119 F.4th 832 (11th Cir. 2024) – Due-process requirements for imposing supervised-release conditions.

Each precedent shaped the court’s application of plain-error review, the permissible scope of sentencing facts, the standard of review for reasonableness, and the requirements for restitution and post-release conditions.

Legal Reasoning

1. Interpretation of the Plea Agreement: The panel stressed that “as determined by the Court” limits the Government’s promise to the Guidelines range the court actually calculates, not any pre–PSI estimate. Because the Government recommended 235 months—the top of the adjusted range—it fulfilled its duty.

2. Drug-Quantity Findings: Under the Guidelines, the court may accept the PSI’s detailed findings on relevant conduct even if they exceed the plea-agreement stipulations. The PSA’s uncontested evidence of 21,000 grams of fentanyl analogue and 2,000 grams of fentanyl sufficed.

3. Restitution Authority: Sections 3663(a)(1)(A) and 3663(a)(2) authorize restitution for conspiracies under § 846. Because Linda Periquito was directly harmed by property damage and lost rental income, the District Court properly ordered $125,000 based on receipts and broker estimates.

4. Supervised Release Conditions: Due process requires that discretionary conditions be made known at sentencing. By referencing the Middle District’s standard form—publicly accessible and consisting of thirteen conditions—the court complied, and the written judgment tracked that list exactly.

Impact

This decision carries important implications:

Plea Bargaining: Clarifies that Government recommendations are measured against the court’s final Guidelines calculation, reducing disputes over anticipated offense levels.
Sentencing Practice: Reinforces reliance on PSIs for drug-quantity determinations and confirms within-Guidelines sentences enjoy a presumption of substantive reasonableness.
Restitution Orders: Affirms VWPA coverage for conspiracies and underscores the need for documented proof of victim losses.
Supervised Release: Validates the use of publicly adopted standard conditions as satisfying oral-pronouncement requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain-Error Review: A four-part test requiring a defendant to show: (1) an error; (2) that is clear or obvious; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
§ 5K1.1 Departure: A discretionary downward adjustment of up to 4 levels in the Sentencing Guidelines when the Government moves the court to reward a defendant’s “substantial assistance.”
Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA): Federal statute authorizing restitution for crimes, including conspiracies, where a “victim” is anyone directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct.
Relevant Conduct: Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, all acts committed by a defendant in furtherance of the conspiracy are aggregated to determine the offense level, even if not specified in the plea agreement.

Conclusion

United States v. Jean-Gilles reaffirms key sentencing principles and clarifies the interplay between plea-agreement language, Guidelines calculations, and restitution authority. By upholding the Government’s recommendation, the within-Guidelines sentence, the restitution order under the VWPA, and the use of standard supervised-release conditions, the Eleventh Circuit provides valuable guidance for future sentencing practice, plea negotiations, and post-conviction obligations in federal drug-conspiracy cases.