that the offense involved more drugs than the parties agreed to in the plea agreement. In the plea agreement, the government stipulated that the crime involved at least 5 but not more than 15 kilograms of cocaine. In its sentencing memorandum, however, the government stated that this amount was just “ ‘the tip of the iceberg’ of Torres’ drug trafficking.” The government then argued that Torres was responsible for a larger amount of drugs. At the sentencing hearing, the government again stated that the stipulated amount was the “tip of the iceberg.” We conclude there was no breach of the plea agreement because the government did not use evidence of larger drug quantities to recommend an increase in the Guidelines calculations or a harsher sentence. See Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d at 992-93 (<HOLDING>). In fact, the government specifically asked
holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level holding that the sentencing courts conclusion that there was simply no way to avoid the base offense level did not indicate mandatory application of the guidelines holding that a reduction for minor role in an offense cannot be awarded when the larger offense was not taken into account in setting the base level holding government did not breach plea agreement where government provided information to probation department that would support higher base offense level and aggravated role but encouraged court not to consider such information and to calculate base offense level consistent with plea agreement holding that resentencing was required where the district court used an incorrect higher base level