two-level, rather than five-level, enhancement for the number of images), but excluded the downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility (for the reasons discussed above). Thus the government’s final sentencing recommendation was consistent with the plea agreement, which permitted the government to withhold a recommendation for an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if Cannel did not comply with the specified conditions. The plea agreement, moreover, permitted the government to seek any sentence within the applicable guideline range; the government recommended a sentence of 97 months, which was at the top of the 78 to 97-month sentencing range dictated by the offense level of 28. AFFIRMED. 1 . See, e.g., United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). CLIFTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the
holding that the governments decision not to move for an acceptance of responsibility adjustment under ussg  3ellb cannot be based on an unconstitutional motive or for reasons not rationally related to a legitimate government interest holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty holding that a defendant should not receive an acceptance of responsibility adjustment when there is contradicting obstructive conduct holding that there was no miscarriage of justice where the defendant claimed that the government abused its discretion by refusing to request a threelevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling