§6B1.2. Standards for Acceptance of Plea Agreements (Policy Statement)
(a) In the case of a plea agreement that includes the dismissal of any charges or an agreement not to pursue potential charges (Rule 11(c)(1)(A)), the court may accept the agreement if the court determines, for reasons stated on the record, that the remaining charges adequately reflect the seriousness of the actual offense behavior and that accepting the agreement will not undermine the statutory purposes of sentencing or the sentencing guidelines.
However, a plea agreement that includes the dismissal of a charge or a plea agreement not to pursue a potential charge shall not preclude the conduct underlying such charge from being considered under the provisions of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) in connection with the count(s) of which the defendant is convicted.
(b) In the case of a plea agreement that includes a nonbinding recommendation (Rule 11(c)(1)(B)), the court may accept the recommendation if the court is satisfied either that:
(1) the recommended sentence is within the applicable guideline range; or
(2) (A) the recommended sentence is outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons; and (B) those reasons are set forth with specificity in the statement of reasons form.
(c) In the case of a plea agreement that includes a specific sentence (Rule 11(c)(1)(C)), the court may accept the agreement if the court is satisfied either that:
(1) the agreed sentence is within the applicable guideline range; or
(2) (A) the agreed sentence is outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons; and (B) those reasons are set forth with specificity in the statement of reasons form.
Commentary
The court may accept an agreement calling for dismissal of charges or an agreement not to pursue potential charges if the remaining charges reflect the seriousness of the actual offense behavior. This requirement does not authorize judges to intrude upon the charging discretion of the prosecutor. If the government's motion to dismiss charges or statement that potential charges will not be pursued is not contingent on the disposition of the remaining charges, the judge should defer to the government's position except under extraordinary circumstances. Rule 48(a), Fed. R. Crim. P. However, when the dismissal of charges or agreement not to pursue potential charges is contingent on acceptance of a plea agreement, the court's authority to adjudicate guilt and impose sentence is implicated, and the court is to determine whether or not dismissal of charges will undermine the sentencing guidelines.
Similarly, the court should accept a recommended sentence or a plea agreement requiring imposition of a specific sentence only if the court is satisfied either that such sentence is an appropriate sentence within the applicable guideline range or, if not, that the sentence is outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons and those reasons are set forth with specificity in the statement of reasons form. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).
A defendant who enters a plea of guilty in a timely manner will enhance the likelihood of his receiving a reduction in offense level under §3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility). Further reduction in offense level (or sentence) due to a plea agreement will tend to undermine the sentencing guidelines.
The second paragraph of subsection (a) provides that a plea agreement that includes the dismissal of a charge, or a plea agreement not to pursue a potential charge, shall not prevent the conduct underlying that charge from being considered under the provisions of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) in connection with the count(s) of which the defendant is convicted. This paragraph prevents a plea agreement from restricting consideration of conduct that is within the scope of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) in respect to the count(s) of which the defendant is convicted; it does not in any way expand or modify the scope of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).
The Commission encourages the prosecuting attorney prior to the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to disclose to the defendant the facts and circumstances of the offense and offender characteristics, then known to the prosecuting attorney, that are relevant to the application of the sentencing guidelines. This recommendation, however, shall not be construed to confer upon the defendant any right not otherwise recognized in law.
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 295); November 1, 1992 (amendment 467); November 1, 1993 (amendment 495); November 1, 2000 (amendment 604); October 27, 2003 (amendment 651); November 1, 2011 (amendment 757); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
188
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case:
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004).
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004).
· cites it 3× “§ 994 (a)(2)(E); USSG § 6B1.2(a), p. s. This system has not worked perfectly; judges have often simply accepted an agreed-upon account of the conduct at *256 issue.”
Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011).
· cites it 3× “See USSG §6B1.2. That policy statement forbids the district judge to accept an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with out first evaluating the recommended sentence in light of the defendant’s applicable sentencing range.”
United States v. Tyrone Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “As the Freeman plurality noted, however, the applicable Guidelines policy statement “forbids the district judge to accept an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement without first evaluating the recommended sentence” under the Guidelines.”
Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018).
· cites it 2× “USSG §6B1.2(c). So in the usual case the court’s ac- ceptance of a Type-C agreement and the sentence to be imposed pursuant to that agreement are “based on” the defendant’s Guidelines range.”
United States v. Ricardo Epps, 707 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “(quoting U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2 commentary). Allowing the district court under § 3582(c)(2) “to revisit a prior sentence to whatever extent the sentencing range in question was a relevant part of the analytic framework the judge used to determine the sentence or to approve the…”
United States v. Philip Scott Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 5× “This doctrine is particularly important here because the sentencing commission amended U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2 in 1992 to allow sentencing courts to augment the defendant’s Relevant Conduct Category based on charges dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain.”
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “5 It is against this background that we consider the district court’s reference to U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2(b) and its commentary in rejecting the government’s sentencing recommendation.”
United States v. Goodall, Rodney, 236 F.3d 700 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 4× “a plea agreement requiring imposition of a specific sentence only if the court is satisfied either that such sentence is an appropriate sentence within the applicable guideline range or, if not, that the sentence departs from the applicable guideline range for justifiable…”
United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “That conclusion is reinforced by U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2(c), which states that “the court may accept” an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement if the sentence agreed to therein is either (1) “within the applicable guideline range” or (2) “outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(C) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(a) — 70 cases
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004).
“§ 994 (a)(2)(E); USSG § 6B1.2(a), p. s. This system has not worked perfectly; judges have often simply accepted an agreed-upon account of the conduct at *256 issue.”
United States v. Philip Scott Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 1994).
“This doctrine is particularly important here because the sentencing commission amended U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2 in 1992 to allow sentencing courts to augment the defendant’s Relevant Conduct Category based on charges dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(b) — 6 cases
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015).
“5 It is against this background that we consider the district court’s reference to U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2(b) and its commentary in rejecting the government’s sentencing recommendation.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(b)(1) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(b)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015).
“5 It is against this background that we consider the district court’s reference to U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2(b) and its commentary in rejecting the government’s sentencing recommendation.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(b)(2)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015).
“5 It is against this background that we consider the district court’s reference to U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2(b) and its commentary in rejecting the government’s sentencing recommendation.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(c) — 49 cases
United States v. Tyrone Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016).
“As the Freeman plurality noted, however, the applicable Guidelines policy statement “forbids the district judge to accept an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement without first evaluating the recommended sentence” under the Guidelines.”
Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018).
“USSG §6B1.2(c). So in the usual case the court’s ac- ceptance of a Type-C agreement and the sentence to be imposed pursuant to that agreement are “based on” the defendant’s Guidelines range.”
Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011).
“See USSG §6B1.2. That policy statement forbids the district judge to accept an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with out first evaluating the recommended sentence in light of the defendant’s applicable sentencing range.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(c)(2) — 5 cases
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(c)(2)(A) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(c)(l) — 2 cases
United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016).
“That conclusion is reinforced by U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2(c), which states that “the court may accept” an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement if the sentence agreed to therein is either (1) “within the applicable guideline range” or (2) “outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons.”
— U.S.S.G. §6B1.2(e) — 5 cases
United States v. Tyrone Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016).
“As the Freeman plurality noted, however, the applicable Guidelines policy statement “forbids the district judge to accept an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement without first evaluating the recommended sentence” under the Guidelines.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.