SUMMARY ORDER

Brandon Bobbitt appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Ar-cara, ./.), sentencing him after his guilty plea principally to 210 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Bobbitt challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Bobbitt waived his right to appeal a sentence that falls within the range of sentences specified in the plea agreement. “Waivers of the right to appeal a sentence are presumptively enforceable.” United States v. Riggi, 649 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bobbitt does not contend that his appeal waiver was not made knowingly, that his sentence was based on constitutionally impermissible factors, or that the government has breached its agreement. See United States v. Buissereth, 638 F.3d 114, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2011) (setting out limits on enforceability of appeal waiver but finding appeal waiver “precluded] this Court from correcting the [procedural] errors alleged to have occurred below”).

Bobbitt contends that the district court focused on the appeal waiver'to the exclusion of appropriate sentencing considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cf. United States v. Woltmann, 610 F.3d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding district court “refused to consider the 5K1.1 letter and the § 3553(a) factors on the ground that the appeal waiver and the sentencing range in the Agreement obviated anything else.”). The record does not support the contention that the court failed to consider the relevant circumstances. Nor did the district court defeat the parties’ reasonable expectations: Bobbitt was sentenced to a term of incarceration at the high-end of the range contemplated in his plea agreement. Cf. United States v. Borrego, 388 F.3d 66, 69 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[Disputes about applicable guidelines need not be resolved where the sentence falls within either of two arguably applicable guideline *814 ranges and the same sentence would have been imposed under either guideline range.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Bobbitt’s other arguments, we hereby DISMISS the appeal.