States v. Williams, 260 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir.2001) (“[A] district court may accept or reject a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) sentence bargain, but may in no event modify it.”)). In rejecting the first plea agreement, the district court so advised Penev as required under Rule 11, and it neither suggested terms for a plea that it would be inclined to accept nor otherwise interfered with subsequent plea negotiations. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion, let alone commit plain error, in rejecting the first plea agreement. Penev also argues to this court that the district court was “compromised” and “improperly influenced” when it accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him. This argument, however, is waived. United States v. Hester, 589 F.3d 86, 94 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120,
holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding that bjecause the defendant has not presented these constitutional arguments to the district court in the first instance and because the appeal waiver narrowly circumscribes what he may appeal  we deem these  arguments waived holding that the district court possessed discretion to decline to review the  2254 petitioners arguments responding to the states assertion that his petition was untimely because the  2254 petitioner raised these arguments for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judges report and recommendation and failed to assert these arguments in a reply to the states response despite the fact that he was ordered to raise these arguments in a reply holding that prisoner waived first amendment claim because he failed to brief arguments on appeal