
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alfredo MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-3684-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 14, 2013.
    Jay S. Ovsiovitch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of New York, of counsel (Robert G. Smith, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Western District of New York, on the brief), Rochester, NY, for Appellant.
    
      Stephan J. Baczynski, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of New York (William J. Hochul Jr., United States Attorney, on the brief), Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges and RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Alfredo Maldonado appeals from the judgment entered September 7, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.) sentencing him to a term of 27 months’ imprisonment on one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and 60 months’ imprisonment on one count possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), to be served consecutively. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Maldonado argues the government breached its obligations pursuant to the plea agreement by (1) opposing a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and (2) failing to move for an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. • Maldonado argues the government’s failure to abide by the terms of the plea agreement resulted in him being sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment on the marijuana count, rather than the 15 to 20 months’ provided for in the plea agreement.

We disagree. The plea agreement contained a reservation of rights by the government, allowing the government to “modify its position with respect to any sentencing recommendation” if the government “receives previously unknown information regarding the recommendation.” There is nothing ambiguous in the reservation of rights — the government receives new, relevant information after sentencing, it can change its sentencing recommendation. Maldonado removed his ankle bracelet and left federal custody for six weeks after entering into his plea agreement and failed to appear for sentencing — facts that could not be known to the government at the time the plea agreement was entered into because they had not yet occurred. See, e.g., United States v. Palladino, 347 F.3d 29, 34 (2d Cir.2003) (government breached plea agreement when advocating an enhancement on the basis of information known to the government at the time the plea agreement was entered). On this record, there was no breach.

We have examined the remainder of Maldonado’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.  