## Facts

- Robert Mark Fentress, charged with multiple bank robberies in the Western District of North Carolina, entered a written plea agreement to plead guilty to two principal bank robbery counts and six additional bank robbery counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2113.
- The plea agreement contained an integration clause stating it was the full and complete agreement and that no other promises had been made.
- The government promised to recommend that the sentence on one count not exceed five years as part of a combined recommendation that imprisonment on the two principal counts not exceed 25 years, and to recommend that the six additional counts run concurrently with each other and with the principal counts.
- The agreement did not address restitution or whether any North Carolina sentence would run concurrently with or consecutively to a separate 12-year federal sentence Fentress was already serving for an unrelated Georgia bank robbery.
- At sentencing, the prosecutor presented information that more than $37,000 had been taken and little recovered, urged restitution to the victim banks, and urged that the new sentence run consecutive to the existing Georgia sentence, noting the plea agreement was silent on both subjects.
- The district court imposed a total of 25 years on the two principal counts, concurrent five-year terms on the six additional counts, ordered the 25-year term consecutive to the Georgia sentence, and ordered restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3579.
- Fentress did not object at sentencing to the government’s recommendations regarding restitution or consecutive sentencing.
- On appeal, Fentress argued the government breached the plea agreement and that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and erred in ordering restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether the government breached a written, integrated plea agreement by recommending restitution and consecutive sentencing on matters not mentioned in the agreement.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error under Rule 11 by failing to advise Fentress of restitution and the possibility of consecutive sentencing, or by the procedure used to impose restitution.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the government did not breach the plea agreement because it honored its express sentencing recommendations and the agreement contained no promise limiting advocacy on restitution or consecutiveness.
- The court held any departures from Rule 11 were not prejudicial; the pleas were knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
- The court upheld the restitution order as authorized by statute and not inconsistent with any term of the plea agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Plea agreements are interpreted using contract principles and construed strictly against the government, but courts do not infer unwritten promises, particularly where the agreement includes an integration clause.
- When the government makes specific sentencing commitments in a plea agreement, breach analysis focuses on whether those express promises were fulfilled; the government may advocate on sentencing matters not covered by the agreement unless it expressly agreed not to do so.
- A district court may impose restitution when authorized by statute, even if the plea agreement is silent, so long as restitution does not contradict an express plea term.
- Rule 11 requires that a defendant be informed of the maximum possible penalty and that the plea be knowing and voluntary; noncompliance warrants relief only upon a showing of prejudice on the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld a sentence that included restitution and a consecutive term because the plea agreement’s integration clause barred implied limits on the government’s sentencing advocacy, the government satisfied its express promises, and any Rule 11 shortcomings did not prejudice the validity of the guilty pleas.


United States v. Fentress, 792 F.2d 461 (4th Cir. 1986)