USCA11 Case: 21-13898 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13898 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANGELO SEXTON, a.k.a. Michaelangelo Sexton, a.k.a. MikeGotit, a.k.a. MikeGotti, Defendant-Appellant. USCA11 Case: 21-13898 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 21-13898 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20266-DPG-1 ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Michael Sexton appeals his 90-month prison sentence for possession of unauthorized access devices and aggravated identity theft. His 90-month sentence was the result of a resentencing that we ordered in Sexton’s prior appeal. See United States v. Sexton, No. 20-14220 (11th Cir. Apr. 9, 2021). Sexton argues that the government breached a stipulation in his plea agreement. That stipulation provided that the loss amount for purposes of calculating Sexton’s guideline range would be $3.5 million. At Sexton’s resentencing hearing, he moved for a down- ward variance. While he acknowledged that he had stipulated to a loss amount of $3.5 million, he argued that “the actual loss amount was $75,000.” The government countered that Sexton could have been held responsible for a loss of more than $1 billion and that “what the parties did in this case was they stipulated to another number that was arguably more reasonable.” The government’s remark, Sexton argues, breached the plea agreement’s stipulation about the amount of loss. USCA11 Case: 21-13898 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 3 of 3 21-13898 Opinion of the Court 3 We find no merit to that argument. Under the plea agree- ment, the government explicitly “reserve[d] the right to inform the Court and the probation office of all facts pertinent to the sentenc- ing process.” That is all the government did when it argued that Sexton could have been held responsible for a greater loss amount. The government nonetheless fulfilled its promise to recommend that the loss amount was $3.5 million for purposes of calculating Sexton’s guideline range. Because the government did not breach the plea agreement, we affirm. AFFIRMED.