ARGUED JANUARY 18, 2011-
Before TINDER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge.*fn1
Nikole Sakellarion was involved in cocaine distribution in the Chicago area. To her credit, when her drug activity came to the attention of law enforcement authorities, she provided substantial assis- tance to the investigators to implicate other drug distributors in exchange, of course, for a favorable plea agreement. That agreement required the government to recom-mend, and if accepted, the court to impose a sentence about half as long as Sakellarion faced under a manda-tory minimum sentencing provision. The district judge accepted the agreement, which contained a waiver of Sakellarion’s right to appeal, and the agreed-upon sentence was imposed. Nonetheless, Sakellarion appeals, complaining not about the sentence she received, but rather about the fact that she did not receive an even more favorable sentence that she had hoped to receive as a result of a supplemental agreement negotiated after she pled guilty under the original plea agreement. She contends that the government acted in bad faith in not fulfilling this agreement to amend the original plea agreement. But we cannot review her complaint about the supplemental agreement because Sakellarion’s original plea agreement contained a waiver of her right to appeal. Because Sakellarion never sought to withdraw her plea of guilty entered under that agreement, we have nothing to review. We must enforce the plea agreement’s appellate waiver and dismiss Sakellarion’s appeal.