upon the requirement that Boggs “accept responsibility for [his] conduct.” Boggs’ attempts to minimize his culpability by stating repeatedly that he did not intend to defraud the victim at the outset of the scheme, without presenting any credible evidence to support his assertions, undermined any argument that Boggs appropriately accepted responsibility. Moreover, Boggs failed to present any credible evidence to contradict the facts presented in the PSR that Boggs made “no legitimate investments” with the victim’s money. Finally, both the probation officer and the district court easily concluded that Boggs failed to accept responsibility, which is further evidence the term is not ambiguous. While Boggs’ argument finds support in United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), we conclude that the cases are
holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver holding that objecting to guidelines calculations as specifically reserved in the plea agreement is not a breach of the plea agreement even if the objection is overruled and thus government is not released from obligation under the agreement to move for acceptance of responsibility holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement