United States v. Robert Henry, 411 U.S. App. D.C. 236

Robert Henry pleaded guilty to persuading/coercing travel for sexual activity (18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)) and possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)) after online contacts with an undercover officer and recovered child‑pornography files on his phone.
Plea agreement required the U.S. Attorney’s Office to inform its Departure Guideline Committee of the “nature and extent” of Henry’s cooperation and to file a §5K1.1/18 U.S.C. §3553(e) motion if the Committee found he provided substantial assistance.
Henry cooperated promptly; his cooperation led to investigations/prosecutions of two other adults for child pornography; the government filed a cooperation proffer describing those results.
Before signing the plea, Henry denied any hands‑on sexual contact with minors; later it emerged he had prior sexual intercourse with a 13‑year‑old in Maryland and had confessed to Maryland authorities; that falsehood was known to prosecutors by sentencing.
The Departure Committee declined to authorize a §5K1.1 motion; the prosecutor told the district court the Committee’s reason was Henry’s false statement about prior contact with minors.
At sentencing the district court rejected Henry’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to fully inform the Committee; the court sentenced Henry to 135 months (concurrent with 120 months) and Henry appealed.

Issue	Henry's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Did the government breach the plea agreement by not informing the Departure Committee of the full “nature and extent” of Henry’s cooperation?	The proffer omitted that an Illinois target was not just a target but was pending trial and likely to plead; that this showed concrete results and the Committee was not fully informed.	The Committee was informed at least of the facts in the proffer (target a registered sex offender, being prosecuted); no meaningful omission existed.	No breach: the proffer conveyed the same substantive information ("being prosecuted") as Henry sought to add, so no material difference.
Did the district court fail to probe or require the government to summarize what it told the Committee and the Committee’s reasons for declining a §5K1.1 motion (per Jones)?	Jones requires prosecutors to summarize for the court what they told the Committee and any Committee explanation; the court should have compelled fuller disclosure.	The government complied: it filed a cooperation proffer summarizing what it told the Committee and the prosecutor explained on the record that the Committee declined because of Henry’s untruthfulness.	Held: Jones’s procedures were satisfied; no further inquiry was required.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea‑agreement promises must be fulfilled)
United States v. Jones, 58 F.3d 688 (D.C. Cir.) (prosecutor should summarize Committee disclosures and Committee’s reasons when no §5K1.1 motion is filed)
United States v. Doe, 934 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir.) (plea‑agreement obligations enforceable)
In re Sealed Case, 244 F.3d 961 (D.C. Cir.) (procedures for evaluating §5K1.1 declinations)
United States v. Ahn, 231 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir.) (plea agreements interpreted under contract principles)
United States v. Gary, 291 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir.) (de novo review of plea‑agreement interpretation)
United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247 (2d Cir.) (ambiguities in plea agreements construed against government)
United States v. Kilroy, 27 F.3d 679 (D.C. Cir.) (defendant bears burden to prove breach)
In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir.) (construing plea‑agreement ambiguities against government)