Carlos Adan Umana (Umana) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for securities fraud. Umana argues that the Government breached its promise in the plea agreement to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable guidelines range. Because Umana did not raise this issue in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir . 2005).

*76 The Government’s sentencing recommendation was included in his presentence report, and the Government’s statements at sentencing were not contrary to the recommendation. See United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2001). We also reject Umana’s assertion that the Government’s statements triggered a “duty” to reiterate the recommendation at sentencing pursuant to our prior decisions in United States v. Saling, 205 F.3d 764, 767 n. 11 (5th Cir. 2000), and Reeves, 255 F.3d at 211. As Umana has not shown that the Government breached the plea agreement, he has not shown plain error.

AFFIRMED.