United States v. Michael Osborn Thomas

No. 24-2052 (6th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 20, 2025 · No. 24-2052

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Michael Thomas’s conviction and 300-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that Thomas failed to establish plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and enforced the plea agreement’s appellate waiver, barring his challenges to sentencing enhancements. Judge Kethledge concurred, arguing that existing circuit precedent improperly permits prosecutors to explain appellate waivers instead of requiring the court to do so.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; R. Guy Cole, Jr.; Raymond M. Kethledge; John B. Nalbandian
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
October 20, 2025
Docket number
24-2052
Procedural posture
Thomas appealed from a federal criminal judgment imposing a 300-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He challenged the validity of his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and challenged two sentencing enhancements. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the unpreserved Rule 11 claims for plain error and enforced the plea agreement's appellate waiver.
Standard of review
Plain-error review for the unpreserved Rule 11 challenges; the court enforced the appellate waiver to dispose of the sentencing-enhancement challenges.
Precedential value
Published Sixth Circuit opinion; precedential per curiam holding, with a nonbinding concurrence.
Parties
Michael Osborn Thomas v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

plea bargainingcriminal proceduresentencingappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedurefederal criminal appealsplea agreementssentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 required the district court to confirm Thomas's understanding of each individual trial right as the court described it, rather than describing the rights collectively and then asking whether he understood them.
  2. Whether the district court violated Rule 11(b)(1)(N) by allowing the prosecutor to summarize the appellate waiver, by failing to explain the waiver's exceptions, or by accepting the plea before the prosecutor explained the waiver.
  3. Whether Thomas could challenge the district court's application of two sentencing enhancements despite the appellate waiver in his plea agreement.

Holdings

  1. Rule 11(b) does not require the court to confirm the defendant's understanding of each individual right immediately after describing that right. Describing the relevant rights and then asking whether the defendant understands them did not constitute plain error.
  2. The record did not establish a plain violation of Rule 11(b)(1)(N). Under controlling Sixth Circuit precedent, the rule is not violated when the prosecutor explains the appellate waiver, provided the record shows that the defendant was informed of and understood the waiver. Thomas acknowledged that he understood the plea agreement, and the record showed that he had reviewed it with counsel.
  3. Thomas's challenges to the two sentencing enhancements were barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement, so the court did not consider them.

Key quotations

We therefore enforce the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. (p. 4)
The district court’s judgment is affirmed. (p. 4)

Factual background

After being released on parole in late 2019, Thomas returned to drug trafficking. In June 2022, while investigating an assault complaint, police found methamphetamine and drug-trafficking paraphernalia in his house. In 2023, while Thomas was under surveillance, he sent his sister to obtain several kilograms of methamphetamine from a supplier; a Michigan state trooper stopped her vehicle and found the drugs. Thomas later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to 300 months in prison.

Procedural history

A federal grand jury indicted Thomas and his sister for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine and related offenses. Thomas pleaded guilty on the morning set for trial pursuant to an agreement providing for a sentence between 120 and 360 months and containing a broad appellate waiver. The district court applied two sentencing enhancements, calculated a guidelines range of life imprisonment, and imposed a 300-month sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…