United States v. Roderrete McClure, 854 F.3d 789

McClure was investigated for a Tenaha, Texas public-corruption and drug-trafficking conspiracy in 2009–2010; agents later searched his home (Aug. 15, 2011) and seized 13 firearms and electronic evidence.
He was indicted in the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division, for being a felon in possession of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and pleaded guilty on Feb. 14, 2012, under a written plea agreement stating the Government would not "prosecute the defendant for any additional non-tax-related charges based upon the conduct underlying and related to the defendant’s plea of guilty."
The Lufkin court excluded Rule 404(b) evidence about guns stolen from the Tenaha Marshal’s Office as peripheral and prejudicial; McClure admitted possession of the 13 guns and received a below-guidelines sentence.
The Government continued the broader Tenaha narcotics investigation; in Aug. 2013 a Tyler-division grand jury indicted McClure on drug-conspiracy and related firearm counts (involving different firearms and an earlier time period).
McClure moved to dismiss the Tenaha indictment as barred by the 2012 plea agreement; the district court held the agreement unambiguous and found the Tenaha charges arose from a distinct course of conduct and therefore were not barred.
McClure pleaded guilty to a superseding information in 2015 but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Government breached the 2012 plea agreement by later prosecuting McClure for Tenaha narcotics-related charges	McClure: plea promise barred prosecution for charges arising from the same investigation; his counsel advised him the plea would cover Tenaha-related charges	Government: plea barred only additional charges "based upon the conduct underlying and related to" the § 922(g) plea—Tenaha charges stem from a separate, earlier conspiracy involving different firearms, time, place, statutes, and co-conspirators	No breach; the Tenaha charges arose from a separate and distinct course of conduct and were not "underlying and related to" the § 922(g) plea
Whether extrinsic evidence (communications, counsel’s belief, Government silence) creates ambiguity about the plea’s scope	McClure: surrounding circumstances and defense counsel’s understanding made the agreement ambiguous and reasonably interpreted to bar Tenaha prosecution	Government: plea language is unambiguous; no express promise was made; silence or counsel’s subjective belief does not create an implied promise	Court: written plea unambiguous; no credible evidence of any additional promise; defendant bound by his plea-hearing statement that no other promises existed

Elashyi v. United States, 554 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2009) (plea-breach analysis and broader "arising out of" language distinguished)
Lewis v. United States, 476 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2007) (defendant bears burden to prove breach; contract principles govern plea interpretation)
Valencia v. United States, 985 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1993) (Santobello principle: prosecutor promises that induce a plea must be fulfilled)
Long v. United States, 722 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2013) (unambiguous plea contracts are interpreted within their four corners)
Wittie v. United States, 25 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 1994) (no breach where two conspiracies were temporally, geographically, and substantively distinct)
Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (affirming related precedent regarding distinct conspiracies)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (promises that induce guilty pleas must be honored)