of 10 years of imprisonment when it later offered to introduce evidence that would subject Taylor to a sentence of more than 10 years. 77 F.3d at 369-71. In contrast with Boatner and Taylor, the United States did not advocate a position contrary to its obligations to Hallock. The United States agreed not to recommend an enhancement for a pattern of sexual activity, and it complied with that agreement. Nothing in that agreement limited the amount or type of information that the United States could disclose about Hallock for purposes of sentencing. And the United States was entitled under the plea agreement to “inform the [District] Court and the probation office of all facts pertinent to the sentencing process.” See United States v. Thomas, 487 F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The United States abided by its agreement. B.
holding the government was required by law to correct a defendants misrepresentations at a sentencing hearing and doing so did not violate the plea agreement holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that the district court erred when it used rule 36 to amend the defendants sentence to include an order of forfeiture that had been agreed to in the plea agreement but which the court failed to make a part of its judgment at sentencing holding that an argument for the district court to give serious consideration of the imposition of consecutive penalties did not violate a plea agreement that forbade the government from recommending a specific sentence but allowed it to give advice about sentencing considerations holding that the  district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues