Jоse Alfredo Medina-Saldana (“Medina”) pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute thirty-one pounds of marijuanа. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the government agreed to recommend a sentence in the lower end of the guideline range. The district court sentenced Medina to eighteen months of imprisonment, which is in the middle of the range of fifteen to twenty-one months specified by the Sentencing Guidelines fоr Medina’s offense. We reject Medina’s argument that the district court either was required to follow the gоvernment’s recommendation or to state in the record its reasons for failing to do so.
I
On July 31, 1989, United States Bоrder Patrol agents saw Medina and another person walking from an area near the Rio Grande River. When the agents attempted to question Medina and his companion, they *1024 dropped two bundles containing thirty-one pounds of marijuana. At his plea hearing, Medina admitted that he was carrying marijuana and thаt it was destined for distribution to another person.
II
On August 8, 1989, Medina was charged in a four-count indictment with conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963; importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a); conspirаcy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Medina entered a guilty plea to the count charging him with possession of marijuana with intеnt to distribute it in exchange for the government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining counts at sentencing and its agreement to recommend that he be sentenced at the lower end of the sentencing guideline rangе. The plea agreement was disclosed on the record, and the district court advised Medina that thе government’s recommendation with respect to sentencing was not binding on the court, and that he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the court chose not to follow the government’s recommendation.
A presentence investigation report («PSi”) wag prepared and filed without objections. The PSI calculatеd a sentencing range of fifteen to twenty-one months of imprisonment, and recommended eighteen months because the approximately fourteen kilograms of marijuana Medina intended to distribute fell in the middle of the quantity range corresponding to his offense level. At sentencing, the district court adoptеd the factual findings of the PSI and implicitly adopted the probation officer’s sentencing recommеndation. The district court sentenced Medina to imprisonment for eighteen months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Medina appeals.
III
A
Medina argues that the district cоurt should have followed the government’s recommendation to impose a sentence at the lower end of the guideline range. Medina concedes that his eighteen-month sentence was within the guidelinе range. He further concedes that the sentencing judge is not required to comply with a sentencing reсommendation made pursuant to a plea agreement. Admitting that there is no case law to support his argument, Medina contends that “the literal reading of Sec. 6B1.2(b)(1) and the commentary Section of thе guidelines suggest such an interpretation.”
We disagree. Section 6B1.2(b)(l) states that the court
may
accept a sentencing recommendation if it is within the guidelines, but does not require the court to do so. The district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts of a particular case is entitled to “due deference.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e).
See United States v. Woolford,
B
In the alternative, Medina argues that the court was required to state on the record its reasons for refusing to follow the government’s sentencing recommendation. We disagree. The government, in compliance with the plea agreement, recommended to the district court that Medina receive a sentence in the lower end of the guideline range. The plea agreement was disclosed on the record, and Medina was informed, and acknowledged that he understood, that the district court was not bound
*1025
by the government’s recommendation. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 requires no more. In any event, the presentence investigation report explained the basis for the probation officer’s sentencing recommendation, and the district court adopted the justification “included in the sentencing recommendation as the court’s own justifiсation.” We decline to impose a requirement that the district court make an elaborate statement of its reasons for a sentence imposed within the guideline range when the facts are undisputed and the court’s calculation of the sentencing range under the guidelines is correct.
See Buenrostro,
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.