## Facts

- A defendant pleaded guilty in federal district court to one count of mail fraud under a plea agreement.
- The government agreed to recommend probation on the condition that the defendant make restitution.
- A presentence report erroneously stated that the government would “stand silent” at sentencing; defense counsel corrected the error at the hearing.
- The prosecutor confirmed on the record that defense counsel’s description of the plea agreement (probation with restitution) was accurate.
- The sentencing court rejected the recommendation and imposed six years of treatment and supervision under the Youth Corrections Act.
- Years later, after a parole-violation warrant and the defendant’s return to custody, the defendant moved to withdraw the guilty plea or, alternatively, to vacate the sentence and be resentenced to time served.
- The defendant argued the government breached the plea agreement because the prosecutor did not advocate for the recommendation enthusiastically and did not explain reasons supporting it.

## Issues

1. Whether the government breaches a plea agreement to “recommend” a sentence when, at sentencing, it fails to advocate enthusiastically or to provide reasons for the recommendation, absent an express promise to do so.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) (as then in force) implies a requirement that the prosecutor justify or vigorously support a promised sentencing recommendation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court’s denial of relief.
- The Court held the government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to argue enthusiastically or to give reasons for the recommendation where the agreement contained no such terms.
- The Court concluded the prosecutor satisfied the government’s obligation by placing the agreed recommendation before the sentencing court.

## Legal Principles

- A prosecutor’s obligation under a plea agreement is governed by the agreement’s expressed terms; courts may not add unstated duties concerning tone, vigor, or explanatory detail.
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) permits the government to make a sentencing recommendation or agree not to oppose the defendant’s request, with the understanding that the recommendation is not binding on the court.
- Absent an express undertaking, a promise “to recommend” a sentence does not, by itself, require the government to provide justifications or to present the recommendation with particular enthusiasm.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the government fulfilled its plea-bargain promise by communicating the agreed sentencing recommendation, and that additional requirements of enthusiastic advocacy or stated reasons cannot be implied from Rule 11(e) or from the bare promise to recommend.


United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453 (1985)