
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret SILVIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30117.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed April 29, 2016.
    Zeno Benjamin Baucus, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Michael S. Lahr, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jesse Froehling, Froehling Law Office, Puyallup, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Margaret Silvia appeals from the district court’s amended judgment reducing her sentence from 100 to 74 months. We dismiss.

Silvia waived her right to appeal if the government moved for a sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 and the district court granted the motion. The government argues that Silvia’s appeal should be dismissed because the district court granted its Rule 35 motion. Silvia counters that the waiver is unenforceable because her sentence is illegal and the government breached the plea agreement. We agree with the government. Silvia’s sentence is not illegal because it does not exceed the statutory maximum or violate the Constitution. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, the record reflects that the government complied with all of its obligations under the plea agreement, including its promise to recommend a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as proyid-ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     