Mitchell McNeil pleaded guilty to multiple federal drug offenses, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. He received a 300-month sentence following a plea agreement with the government. On appeal, McNeil argued that the government breached this plea agreement by seeking and obtaining a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1). McNeil contended that because the dangerous weapon factor was not a stipulated sentencing factor in the agreement, the government was barred from seeking it. The district court had rejected this argument, and McNeil appealed, asserting a breach of contract.
The court applied plain error review because McNeil failed to challenge the government's alleged breach of the plea agreement in the district court. To succeed under this standard, McNeil needed to show that the government plainly breached the agreement and that this breach affected his substantial rights. The court grounded its analysis in contract law, stating that plea agreements are contracts where both parties receive the benefit of their bargain. A breach occurs only when a promise made to induce the plea goes unfulfilled. The court emphasized a central tenet of contract law: no party is obligated to provide more than is specified in the agreement itself. Therefore, the government is held only to the promises it actually made. In this case, the agreement explicitly stated it contained the entirety of the understanding between the parties and listed only the sentencing factors to which they stipulated. Crucially, the agreement reserved the government's right to present any evidence and information at sentencing and to make a sentence recommendation, without limiting the parties from arguing about the applicability of other sentencing factors. Consequently, the court found no breach, as the government did not promise to refrain from arguing for the dangerous weapon enhancement.
McNeil's 300-month sentence remains valid. The decision reinforces that plea agreements are strictly construed as contracts, and the government retains the right to argue for sentencing enhancements based on evidence presented at sentencing unless the agreement explicitly waives that right or stipulates otherwise. This ruling clarifies that the absence of a specific stipulation regarding a sentencing factor does not implicitly bar the government from seeking it.