to her or to the government, and some of which may be quite different than either thought possible. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 21; see also Sotirion v. United States, 617 F.3d 27, 38 (1st Cir. 2010). At the time of sentencing there was no “sentencing error”. Petitioner made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights, choosing the certainty of a binding plea agreement over the uncertainty of a jury trial. He cannot accept the benefit of that agreement and then repudiate it when a change in circumstances later arises. See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 21. A retroactive determination that an advisory guideline range may have been ■ miscalculated does not overcome petitioner’s appellate waiver; See Sotirion, 617 F.3d at 38; see also United States v. Calderon-Pacheco, 564 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). In view of the circumstances, the Court
holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver holding a showing of egregious facts required to vault the hurdle erected by the waiver holding that the failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ors 4261001 constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review recognizing waiver by acquiescence as a possible defense to an action for past due alimony but finding no waiver under the facts presented holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case