at a lower loss calculation than the government believed was appropriate. Although the government was able to secure base offense levels for each defendant consistent with its wishes, it nevertheless decided to pursue departures. We conclude that the appellants were not prejudiced by the government’s “broken promise.” After all, Akindele and Lawal did not learn that the district court would accept the government’s loss calculations until during the sentencing hearing. Faced with that uncertainty, the departure issue could and should have been thoroughly researched beforehand. The (albeit conditional) notice provided by the government contained all the information necessary for Akindele and La-wal to prepare and respond effectively. See Burns, 501 U.S. at 138-39, 111 S.Ct. at 2187 (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). The appellants correctly
holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure holding that the governments representations to the court that it was not seeking an upward departure suggested it had not breached the plea agreement holding that the requisite notice must specifically identify the ground on which the district court is contemplating an upward departure holding that district courts error was not harmless because the court relied on an improper factor in imposing an upward departure holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure