United States v. McClure

8 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Whisneant

    CRIMINAL NO.1:20-CR-00055-TH (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2021)

    Analysis The parties' dispute is a legal one: Are the current charges against Whisneant based on the conduct underlying and related to his guilty plea in the Silencer Case? Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on essentially the same question in United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2017). There, the defendant conspired with a city marshal to steal drugs from an evidence room and sell them.

  2. United States v. Thomas

    58 F.4th 964 (8th Cir. 2023)   Cited 6 times
    Interpreting plea agreement by consulting dictionary

    It could have promised no further prosecution "for the specific conduct described in the indictment or statement of facts." See United States v. Jordan , 509 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2007) ; see also United States v. McClure , 854 F.3d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting that the plea agreement's promise was limited to offenses related to the conduct supporting the guilty plea rather than the government's investigation into that conduct). Or the Government might have limited the range of offenses that it agreed not to prosecute by using language like "the defendant will not be charged with any other drug offense" or "any other Title 21 offense."

  3. United States v. Johnson

    CRIMINAL ACTION H-14-047-1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2017)

    The governing law is clear. If a defendant pleads guilty as part of a plea agreement, the Government must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of its promises as set forth in the agreement. United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 2017). The defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government breached an agreement.

  4. United States v. Cuff

    79 F.4th 470 (5th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    But as this court has previously held, "A defense counsel's subjective belief that a defendant's plea will preclude future prosecution related to an ongoing investigation, even if the defendant relied upon it, does not, without more, immunize him from prosecution." United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789, 796 (5th Cir. 2017).

  5. United States v. Perry

    35 F.4th 293 (5th Cir. 2022)   Cited 44 times
    Vacating Section 924 convictions without government objection where trial court instructed jury it could convict on one of two predicate offenses, one valid and one invalid

    However, "[a] defense counsel's subjective belief ... does not, without more, immunize [a defendant] from prosecution." United States v. McClure , 854 F.3d 789, 796 (5th Cir. 2017). Instead, the question is whether Doyle and his counsel's understanding of the agreement was objectively reasonable.

  6. United States v. Butler

    7 F.4th 408 (5th Cir. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Even supposing that the agreement's silence rendered it ambiguous, parole evidence likewise demonstrates that Butler didn't consider her plea agreement to bar § 862 ineligibility or special conditions of SR. "[W]hen a plea contract is unambiguous, this court generally will not look beyond the four corners of the document." United States v. McClure , 854 F.3d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). But courts sometimes check to see if any evidence demonstrates contrary intent.

  7. United States v. Adams

    No. 19-11393 (5th Cir. Dec. 30, 2020)

    Adams indicated in the plea agreement and at rearraignment that the plea agreement was a complete statement of the parties' agreement, the plea agreement superseded any other promises and representations by the parties, he was not pleading guilty based on any promises outside of the plea agreement, and he fully understood the plea agreement and accepted it voluntarily. See United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789, 793, 797 (5th Cir. 2017); Long, 722 F.3d at 264. Lastly, Adams is incorrect that the Government failed to dispute his assertions in the district court about its obligation to file a § 3E1.1(b) motion, as the Government contended in the district court that it retained the discretion to decide whether to file a § 3E1.1(b) motion.

  8. United States v. James

    No. 19-50282 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 2020)

    We apply general principles of contract law to interpret the terms of a plea agreement and generally will not look beyond the agreement's four corners if it is unambiguous. United States v. McClure, 854 F.3d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 2017). James cites no ambiguity in the plea agreement or any other basis in the record supporting the existence of the implicit promise he posits (which, we note, would essentially obviate the waiver contained in his plea agreement if countenanced), and we decline to look beyond the clear appellate waiver contained within the four corners of his plea agreement.