Phillip Schuman appeals his 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(ii). Schuman contends that the district court erred by ruling that the assertion of a coercion and duress defense precludes an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The government contends that Schuman waived his right to *817appeal in his plea agreement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and because we agree with the government, we dismiss the appeal.
Schuman contends that he did not waive his right to appeal because (1) the waiver did not specifically address his statutory right to appeal an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; (2) the district court specifically advised him that he could appeal; and (3) the government breached the plea agreement.
We review de novo whether an appellant waived his statutory right to appeal, see United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir.1991); and whether the government violated the terms of the plea agreement, see United States v. Myers, 32 F.3d 411, 413 (9th Cir.1994).
I. Express Waiver in Plea Agreement
The plea agreement states that Schuman “waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction and sentence.” The plea agreement then delineates exceptions to the waiver not applicable here. We reject Schuman’s contention that the language of the plea agreement does not specifically contemplate the statutory right to appeal incorrect applications of the Sentencing Guidelines for it would render the waiver meaningless. See United States v. Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 901 (9th Cir.1994).
II. District Court’s Advisement of Right to Appeal
Schuman contends that he was entitled to rely on the district court’s advisement during sentencing that Schuman has a right to appeal. This contention lacks merit.
In United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 430, 133 L.Ed.2d 345 (1995), we held:
Given the district court judge’s clear statements at sentencing [that the defendant had the right to appeal], the defendant’s assertion of understanding, and the prosecution’s failure to object, we hold that in these circumstances, the district court’s oral pronouncement controls and the plea agreement waiver is not enforceable.
Here, unlike Buchanan, the prosecutor promptly objected to the court’s advisement of appellate rights as contrary to the plea agreement. In response, the judge stated that he would nonetheless advise Schuman of the right to appeal because he was not sure if Schuman had waived the right to appeal. Specifically the judge stated: “I don’t know whether under these circumstances whether his right of appeal has been lost or not. I’m making a finding it’s up to the Ninth Circuit. ... It’s up to the Ninth Circuit to decide whether under the circumstances he’s lost his right of appeal.”
Thus, whereas Buchanan “could have no reason but to believe that the court’s advice on the right to appeal was correct,’-’ id., Schuman was made aware by both the court and the prosecutor’s objection that the waiver of his right to appeal could preclude an appeal. See United States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 529 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2423, 138 L.Ed.2d 186 (1997) (Hall, J. concurring) (concluding defendant waived right to appeal sentence, in part because the prosecution objected to the advisement of appellate rights); see, e.g., United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.1997) (citing with approval Hall, J. concurrence in Littlefield). We hold that the statements of the district court did not affect the waiver of the right to appeal contained in the plea agreement.
III.Government Compliance with the Plea Agreement
Schuman’s contention that the waiver in the plea agreement is not binding because the government breached its duty under the plea agreement also lacks merit. Specifically, Schuman contends that the government breached its agreement by (1) failing to bring a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, for substantial assistance to the authorities; and (2) opposing the downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and are measured by contract law standards.” United States v. Keller, 902 *818F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir.1990). The government is held “to the literal terms of the agreement.” United States v. Baker, 25 F.3d 1452, 1458 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted).
Here, the government’s failure to move under section 5K1.1 was not a breach of the plea agreement because it contained no such agreement. The plea agreement specifically provides that it embodies the entire agreement between the parties, written and oral, and that any modification must be in writing.
Similarly, Schuman’s contention that the government breached the plea agreement by opposing the downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility lacks merit. The plea agreement states that the government will not recommend an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if, inter alia, Schuman attempts to withdraw the plea. Because Schuman indeed attempted to withdraw his plea, the government was free to oppose or not recommend the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See Baker, 25 F.3d at 1458.
Because Schuman waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement, we do not reach the merits of his claim.
DISMISSED.