Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILLIAMS wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN joined. Judge KING wrote a separate dissenting opinion.
OPINION
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:On March 24, 2001, Agnes Holbrook shot to death her estranged husband, Larry Lee Holbrook. Shortly thereafter, a grand jury sitting in the Western District of Virginia charged Holbrook in a two-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(9) (West 2000) (Count One) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a)(6) (West 2000) (Count Two) in connection with the shooting. After a jury had been empaneled and evidence presented as to both counts, Holbrook decided to enter into a plea agreement with the Government, under which she agreed to plead guilty as to Count One in exchange for a number of promises from the Government, including its promise to dismiss Count Two. After Holbrook breached the plea agreement by attempting to withdraw her guilty plea, the Government elected to forego its promise to dismiss Count Two and to oppose any attempt by Holbrook to withdraw her guilty plea as to Count One. The district court found this remedy permissible under the plea agreement, and the case proceeded to trial on Count Two, after which a second, jury found Holbrook guilty. On appeal, Holbrook argues that the Government’s election of remedies violates due process because, Holbrook asserts, she was held to her end of the bargain, while the Government was free not to perform its end of the bargain. Holbrook also argues that the second jury trial on Count Two violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, and that the district court erred at sentencing in finding that she had acted with malice in killing her husband. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.
A.
The facts are taken from Holbrook’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which the district court adopted as its factual findings at sentencing, as well as evidence adduced at trial and at sentencing. We accept these findings as true unless we find them to be clearly erroneous. United States v. Stockton, 349 F.3d 755, 764 (4th Cir.2003).
The charges against Holbrook in this case arise out of the March 24, 2001, shoot*417ing death of her husband, Larry. In the months prior to March 2001, Holbrook and Larry had separated and had become embroiled in a bitter divorce. Both had filed motions for protective orders against each other on numerous occasions, Larry had started a relationship with another woman, Stephanie Gibson, and he had told several individuals that he was removing Holbrook as a beneficiary of his government benefits and life insurance policies. On February 19, 2001, Holbrook purchased a .22 caliber pistol from a federally licensed firearms dealer in Pennington Gap, Virginia. In filling out the required screening paperwork, Holbrook indicated that she never had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, an offense that disqualifies persons from possessing firearms, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(9). In fact, she previously had been convicted of assaulting her former husband, Clay Phillips, with a knife. Because Holbrook committed this prior offense when her name was Agnes Bernice Phillips, the record check performed by the dealer did not reveal the conviction, and the dealer sold her the firearm. After test-firing the pistol several days after purchasing it, Holbrook determined that the gun was in need of repairs and had a friend return it to the dealer.
A few weeks later, on March 5, 2001, Holbrook lost her job. Her employer, the Department of Social Services for Lee County, Virginia, forced her to resign after discovering that she had lied on her job application about her criminal history. Holbrook believed that her employer had made this discovery as the result of a tip from Larry.
That same day, Holbrook set out to acquire a second firearm. Almost immediately after resigning from work, Holbrook called a friend, Jason Gibson (the estranged husband of Larry Holbrook’s paramour, Stephanie Gibson), to inquire about obtaining a firearm. Gibson eventually took Holbrook to the residence of his cousin, Steve Wuderman, who sold Hol-brook a .357 magnum handgun. Wuder-man was not a licensed firearms dealer. Holbrook test-fired the weapon, made payment arrangements, and left the Wuder-. man residence with Gibson.
On March 24, 2001, Holbrook used the .357 magnum to shoot and kill Larry in a dispute in the bedroom of her home. The precise details of the shooting remain somewhat a mystery because Holbrook was the only witness to the shooting, and, as explained below, her version of events has changed significantly over time. Some facts about the events of that date, however, are undisputed. First, record evidence indicates that on the date of the shooting, Larry had been seen in a light-hearted mood, and he had told someone that he was going to pick up his kids to go play ball. Second, although it is unclear from the evidence why Larry drove to Hol-brook’s residence on March 24, the evidence does show that Larry had a firearm in his car when he arriyed at the Holbrook residence and that he left that firearm in the car when he went inside. Finally, evidence in the record shows that Hol-brook did not call the police until shortly after 6:00 pm, although neighbors testified that they heard a single gun shot between 4:00 pm and 4:45 pm.
Initially, Holbrook told investigators that Larry had committed suicide in front of her. The investigators’ examination of the forensic evidence, however, led them to question Holbrook’s truthfulness. For example, their investigation found that Larry Holbrook had no gun-powder residue on his hands and his fingerprints were not found on the weapon; Larry’s body had been moved at least three times after *418death; and evidence indicated that the murder weapon had been wiped clean.
Later, at her first trial, and only after being confronted with the forensic evidence described above, as well as evidence linking the murder weapon to her, Hol-brook admitted that she had shot Larry. According to Holbrook’s trial version of events, Holbrook exited the bathroom of her home, and saw Larry standing in the hallway with her .357 magnum, which, Hol-brook explained, Larry must have found in its hiding place behind her dresser mirror. Larry then threatened to kill her and a stand-off ensued. The couple ended up in the bedroom with Larry on his knees on the floor and Holbrook on the bed. When Larry laid the pistol on the bed, she grabbed the weapon and shot Larry once in the face in an act of self-defense.
At her second trial, Holbrook recanted much of this version of events, testifying that although she may have killed Larry, she had no recollection of exactly what happened.
B.
On April 25, 2001, a grand' jury sitting in the Western District of Virginia charged Holbrook in a two-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(9) by possessing the .357 magnum after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (Count One) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a)(6) by making false statements to a firearms dealer in connection with her purchase of the .22 caliber pistol from the federally licensed firearms dealer (Count Two). The Government tried Hol-brook before a jury on these charges from August 21-23, 2001. At the close of the third day of trial, after the district court ruled that Holbrook could not raise a justification defense in response to the charges, Holbrook, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty as to Count One pursuant to a written plea agreement (the Agreement) with the Government, under which Holbrook agreed to plead guilty as to Count One in exchange, inter alia, for the dismissal of Count Two. After a Rule 11 plea colloquy during which the district court reviewed the terms of the Agreement with Holbrook and her counsel, the district court acceptéd her plea and approved the Agreement.
Several months later, after the entry of her guilty plea but prior to sentencing, Holbrook fired her trial counsel and hired new counsel, and on November 5, 2001, filed a motion for leave to withdraw her guilty plea. In a letter dated November 7, 2001, the Government informed Holbrook that it considered any motion to withdraw her guilty plea to be a breach of the Agreement, but that it was not renouncing the Agreement or declaring it void. The Government explained that it intended to hold Holbrook to her guilty plea as to Count One, and instead of dismissing Count Two of the indictment, it would retry Holbrook on that count. The Government further explained that it took these actions pursuant to the Agreement.
Six months later, the district court took evidence on Holbrook’s motion to withdraw her plea, and on May 9, 2002, denied the motion.1 The Government then moved to continue sentencing as to Count One, so that it could first try Holbrook on Count Two. On June 14, 2002, the district court held' a hearing on the Government’s motion, granted it, and, on June 25, 2002, the *419district court memorialized its decision in an opinion. See United States v. Holbrook, 207 F.Supp.2d 472 (W.D.Va.2002). The district court explained that the remedy pursued by the Government was allowed by Paragraph D(g) of the Agreement, which granted the Government the authority to “refuse to abide by any sentencing or other stipulations” imthe Agreement, including its promise to dismiss Count Two. Id. at 475.
On July 12, 2002, Holbrook filed a motion to dismiss Count Two on the ground that trying her under that count would be a violation of her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause because a jury previously had been empaneled and heard evidence on that count. On July 22, 2002, immediately prior to the commencement of the second trial, the district court denied this motion on the record, explaining that Hol-brook effectively waived the defense of double jeopardy upon execution of the Agreement. Holbrook was tried on Count Two from July 22-26, 2002, and found guilty.
The district court sentenced Holbrook on October 17, 2002. The only contested issue at sentencing concerned the application of § 2K2.1(c)(l)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(c)(l)(B) (2001). Specifically, the parties disputed whether to cross-reference to the guideline for second degree murder (U.S.S.G. § 2A1.2), or to the guideline for voluntary man-slaughter (U.S.S.G. § 2A1.3). The Government argued that the second degree murder guideline applied because Holbrook acted with malice. The Government’s view of the facts was that Holbrook set a trap for Larry on the day of his murder and then attempted to make the murder appear to be a suicide. Holbrook, in contrast, took the position that the voluntary manslaughter guideline should apply because the shooting was impulsive and was the result of the heat of passion. Holbrook’s view of the facts was that Larry had come to her home that day, confronted her with the murder weapon, and threatened to kill her. Once the opportunity presented itself, Hol-brook contended, she took the gun and shot Larry out of fear for her own safety.
Considering the evidence presented at the two trials, the facts presented in Hol-brook’s PSR, and evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Holbrook acted with malice, and accordingly cross-referenced to the second degree murder guideline. The district court explained. its reasoning as follows:
I believe that her efforts, which have been documented to cover up the nature of the crime are highly circumstantial evidence of her malice in committing this crime.... I accept the evidence of the expert presented by the Government today that the body had likely been moved.
I accept the evidencé of the Government that the gun had been wiped clean, and placed under the deceased’s hand, again in an effort, it reasonably appears, to indicate that he had killed himself.
The fact that he had a gun in his vehicle, but did not bring it into the house negates the defendant’s claim that he was the aggressor in this case. The fact, which I accept from the evidence, that the defendant had been seen earlier that day in a lighthearted mood, that he was not showing evidence of mental illness or other-cause, which would have caused him to want to kill her or himself, as she claims at one point he said he was going to do, the fact that she has changed her statements from the beginning over time, evidences to me a guilty conscience, an effort to escape responsibility.
*420She certainly had motive for premeditation and malice, as the evidence has shown, without really any contradiction. The victim was considering changing her as his beneficiary, and that would have caused her to lose benefits.
In addition, ... I do not doubt that this was a rancorous divorce[.][T]here’s every evidence ... that the defendant was at a point where she felt hostility toward her husband, and they had been the subject of, he had been the subject of her going to court on numerous occasions, and that there was certainly hostility there....
I find that she did have malice in a legal sense, and that her shooting of her husband was not based on any sudden passion or rage sufficient to negate malice and make this crime voluntary manslaughter.
(J.A. at 892-95.) Applying the second degree murder cross-reference, the district court sentenced Holbrook to a term of 120 months incarceration as to Count One and a consecutive term of 90 months incarceration as to Count Two.
II.
Holbrook raises three arguments on appeal. First, Holbrook argues that the district court deprived her of her constitutional rights when it interpreted the Agreement to allow the Government to refuse to dismiss and proceed to trial on Count Two, while refusing to relieve her of the consequences of her performance — i.e., her plea of guilty to Count One. Second, Holbrook argues that the second trial on Count Two violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution because a jury previously had been empaneled and heard evidence on that count. Third, Holbrook asserts that the district court erred in finding at sentencing that she acted with malice in killing Larry Holbrook. We address each argument in turn.
A.
The interpretation of the terms of a plea agreement is a question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir.2000). We construe plea agreements in accordance with principles of contract law so that each party receives the benefit of its bargain. United States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir.1993). Under “ordinary principles of contract law,” we enforce a contract’s “plain language in its ordinary sense.” See Bynum v. Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Inc., 287 F.3d 305, 313 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[CJourts do not write the contracts of parties retroactively, but merely construe the terms of the contract the parties have previously signed.” United States v. Race, 632 F.2d 1114, 1119 (4th Cir.1980). “Because a defendant’s fundamental and constitutional rights are implicated when [s]he is induced to plead guilty by reason of a plea agreement,” however, we must analyze a plea agreement “with greater scrutiny” than would apply to a commercial contract. United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1997). This heightened scrutiny is necessary because “a defendant’s plea of guilty can truly be said to be voluntary only when ‘the bargain represented by the plea agreement is not frustrated.’” United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412, 413-14 (4th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Jureidini, 846 F.2d 964, 965-66 (4th Cir.1988)). Accordingly, we hold “the Government to a greater degree of responsibility than the defendant ... for imprecisions or ambiguities in plea agreements.” United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir.1986).
Several terms in the Agreement are relevant to Holbrook’s appeal. First, *421in Paragraph I, Holbrook and the Government agreed that the Government’s duty to dismiss Count Two of the indictment was expressly conditioned upon Holbrook “meeting the conditions set forth in paragraph H of this agreement.” (J.A. at 313.) In Paragraph H of the Agreement, Hol-brook agreed:
If I fulfill my obligations under this plea agreement and accept responsibility for my conduct, the United States will recommend that the Court grant me a reduction in my offense level for the appropriate level of acceptance of responsibility under the sentencing guidelines.
However, I hereby agree and stipulate that if I do any of the following, I should not receive credit for acceptance of responsibility and the United States will be free to make any recommendations it wishes at sentencing or to declare a breach of this plea agreement and seek the remedies set forth in paragraph D: (1) attempt to withdraw my guilty plea....
(J.A. at 313 (emphases added).)
Holbrook concedes that she materially breached the Agreement by attempting to withdraw her guilty plea as to Count One, but she argues that the remedy imposed by the district court for this breach — retaining her guilty plea to Count One and trying her on Count Two — was authorized neither by the terms of the Agreement nor traditional principles of contract law, and that as a result, the remedy violated her constitutional due process rights. Specifically, Holbrook asserts that, under the terms of the Agreement and as a matter of contract law, the only way the Government could try her on Count Two of the indictment was to declare the entire Agreement void. By allowing the Government to try her on Count Two without first voiding the Agreement, Holbrook contends, the district court frustrated the bargain as she perceived it — the Government received its principal benefit, her plea of guilty as to Count One, while she was denied her principal benefit, the dismissal of Count Two. Holbrook, in short, asks us to determine whether the Agreement permitted the remedy that the district court enforced.
By its own terms, the Agreement is comprehensive, and provides the Government with a broad range of remedies in the event of a breach by Holbrook. Paragraph D, entitled “Remedies for Breach of Plea Agreement,” identifies this broad range of remedies and provides in pertinent part as follows:
I understand that if I breach any provision of this agreement, at any time, that the United States Attorney’s office may, at its election, pursue any or all of the following remedies: (a) declare this plea agreement void and proceed to trial; ... (g) refuse to abide by any other sentencing or other stipulations contained in this plea agreement; (h) take any other action provided for under this agreement or by statute, regulation or court rule. The remedies set forth above are cumulative, and not mutually exclusive.
(J.A. at 312 (emphases added).)
Thus, under Paragraph D, the Government retained the ability to pursue many different remedies, alone or in combination, in the event of a breach. Three of those remedies are relevant here. First, Paragraph D(a) permitted the Government to “declare th[e] plea agreement void and proceed to trial.”2 (J.A. at 312.) Paragraph D(a) is the only remedy that ne*422gates the plea of guilty as to Count One, which lies at the very heart of the plea agreement. Should this remedy be pursued, the parties would be restored to the status quo ante the Agreement, with Hol-brook asserting pleas of not guilty as to both Count One and Count Two, and the Government preparing to try her on those counts. By using the phrase “proceed to trial” in Paragraph D(a), the parties agreed that the Government would not dismiss the counts, but rather would try Holbrook on those counts. As noted above, the Government declined to pursue this remedy.
Although Paragraph D(a) uses the phrase, “proceed to trial,” it is not, as Holbrook contends (and our colleague in dissent agrees3) the only way in which the Government could “proceed to trial” under the Agreement.4 The second such mechanism is found in Paragraph D(g), under which the Government could “refuse to abide by any other sentencing or other stipulations contained in this plea agreement,” (J.A. at 312 (emphasis added)), which would include its stipulation that it would dismiss Count Two.
Contrary to our colleague’s view, we find that the term, “other stipulations,” unambiguously includes all of the Government’s obligations under the Agreement. We note first that the term, “stipulation,” is not specifically defined by the terms of the Agreement. Although the heading of Paragraph J is “STIPULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,” the text of that paragraph deals only with Holbrook’s promise to assign her interest in Larry Holbrook’s death benefits to Joshua and Dylan Holbrook. Paragraph J does not address any stipulation by the Government and does not purport to define the entire set of agreed-upon “stipulations” in the Agreement.
In its ordinary usage, the word “stipulation” is understood to mean “an act of *423stipulating or something stipulated” such as “a condition, requirement, or item specified in a contract.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2245 (1986). Similarly, in its ordinary legal usage, the term is understood to mean “[a] material condition or requirement in an agreement.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1427 (7th ed.1999). The parties use the term “stipulate” throughout the Agreement in a manner consistent with these definitions. For example, in Paragraph H, Holbrook stated, “I hereby agree and stipulate that if I do any of the following I should not receive credit for acceptance of responsibility and the United States will be free to make any recommendations it wishes at sentencing or to declare a breach of this plea agreement....” (J.A. at 313.) Similarly, Paragraph K states that “[t]he parties stipulate that the proper cross-reference for any sentencing in this case is second degree murder.... ” (J.A. at 314.) In sum, when the Agreement is read as a whole, it is clear that the term “stipulation” includes the Government’s conditional obligation in Paragraph I to dismiss Count Two should Holbrook fulfill her obligations.
Finally, Paragraph D(h) provided that the Government could “take any other action provided for under this agreement or by statute, regulation or court rule.” (J.A. at 312.) An “other action” contemplated by the Agreement was the Government’s ability to refuse to dismiss Count Two, as provided for by Paragraph I. Because, in attempting to withdraw her guilty plea, Holbrook did not perform her obligations under paragraph H, the Government’s conditional duty to dismiss Count Two under Paragraph I never came due. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225(2) (“[T]he non-occurrence of a condition discharges the duty when the condition can no longer occur.”); 2 E. Allan Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts § 8.3 (2d ed.1998) (same).
Our dissenting colleague appears to agree that one of the Government’s remedies in the event of a breach would be to refuse to dismiss Count Two, but he does not concede that, in such an event, a trial on Count Two is permitted. See, e.g., post at 431 (“While a breach by Holbrook could support a decision by the United States Attorney not to dismiss Count Two, the Dismissal Clause neither addresses the issue of trial nor authorizes the Government to proceed to trial.”). While the dismissal clause in Paragraph I does not include the words, “proceed to trial,” Paragraph D(h), as noted above, allowed that the Government, at its election, could “take any other action provided for ... by statute, regulation or court rule,” and could do so cumulative to any other remedy. The trial of a criminal defendant on pending charges is an act unquestionably authorized by “statute, regulation or court rule.” See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3161-74 (West 2000 & Supp. 2003) (The Speedy Trial Act). Thus, the plain language of the Agreement permitted for the Government to try Holbrook on Count Two after refusing to dismiss it.5
*424Accordingly, under the broad, plain language of the Agreement, negotiated with the advice of counsel, reviewed and approved by the district court at Holbrook’s Rule 11 plea colloquy, the Government retained the ability “at its election, [to] pursue any or all” of the listed remedies and explicitly provided that “[t]he remedies ... [we]re cumulative, and not mutually exclusive.” Thus, Holbrook’s subsequent trial on Count Two was consistent with the plain language of the Agreement and thus was consistent with constitutional due process requirements. The Agreement unquestionably is favorable to the Government. Nevertheless, its unambiguous terms' represent the bargain that Holbrook struck — a bargain that she struck, notably, on the advice of counsel, only after hearing the Government present to a jury its case as to both counts, and after the district court ruled that she could not present a justification defense. Holbrook sought to with-draw her guilty plea upon the advice of counsel, and did. so despite a prompt and express warning from the Government that it would hold her to the terms of the Agreement and try her on Count Two while maintaining her guilty plea on Count One. Although our precedent requires us to hold the Government accountable for ambiguities in written plea agreements, it does not require us to create such ambiguities where there are none.6
B.
In her second argument on appeal, Hol-brook asserts that the district court erred in failing to dismiss Count Two on the ground that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. We review questions of double jeopardy de novo. United States v. Studifin, 240 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.2001).
“The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). But, when the initial jeopardy terminates at the defendant’s behest, or on a basis unrelated to the sufficiency of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the Double Jeopardy Clause generally imposes no barrier to retrial. See United States v. Borromeo, 954 F.2d 245, 247 (4th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964)) (“[T]he government is not barred from retrying cases when the first trial ends on the defendant’s motion for mistrial.”); United States v. Alvarez, 351 F.3d 126, 129-30 (4th Cir.2003) (holding that where district court entered an order labeled “Judgment of Acquittal” that was based on matters unrelated to the sufficiency of the evidence *425against the accused, Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar retrial); cf. Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982) (“Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded and aborting the first on his own motion”).
In this case, Holbrook’s first jury trial ended at her behest, without any “goading” by the Government, when she decided to enter a plea of guilty after the district court ruled that she could not put on a justification defense. Holbrook has not suggested, either below or on appeal, that the evidence against her was anything less than sufficient to support a conviction. To the contrary, Holbrook stipulated in the Agreement that there was “a sufficient factual basis to support each and every material factual allegation contained within” the indictment. (J.A. at 315.) In short, the Government’s retrial of Holbrook on Count Two is “scarcely a picture of an all-powerful state relentlessly pursuing a defendant who had either been found not guilty or who had at least insisted on having the issue of guilt submitted to the first trier of fact.” United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 96, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). Accordingly, because Holbrook herself terminated the first trial and has made no allegation that this termination was the result of any governmental misconduct, we reject Holbrook’s double jeopardy challenge and affirm the district court’s denial of Holbrook’s motion to dismiss Count Two.
C.
In her third, and final, argument on appeal, Holbrook asserts that the district court, in calculating the sentence for her conviction on Count One, erred in finding that she acted with malice in killing Larry Holbrook. We review a district court’s factual determinations made in connection with sentencing for clear error and its legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711, 714 (4th Cir.2000).
Section 2K2.1 of the Guidelines governs Holbrook’s conviction under Count One, and provides that, where the defendant used a firearm in connection with the commission of another offense in which death results, the sentencing court must apply “the most analogous offense guideline from Chapter Two, Part A, Subpart 1 (Homicide), if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(l)(B). Because Hol-brook’s base offense level on Count One would have been 14 absent the cross-reference, and the possible base offense levels under the homicide guidelines were greater than 14, the district court correctly cross-referenced Holbrook’s convictions to the homicide guidelines. The district court found that Holbrook acted with malice in killing Larry Holbrook and accordingly applied the second-degree murder guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.2.
We see no error, clear or otherwise, in the district court’s finding that Holbrook acted with malice. As the district court accurately explained at sentencing, the evidence showed quite convincingly Hol-brook’s malice in committing this crime: she had apparent motive; she doggedly sought to acquire a functioning weapon in the weeks prior to the shooting; she attempted to make the shooting look like a suicide by moving the victim’s body and wiping the weapon clean of her fingerprints; and she repeatedly changed her story about what happened on the date of the shooting. Given this evidence, the district court was more than justified in finding that Holbrook acted with malice.
*426III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED
. Applying our holding in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir.1991), the district court rejected Holbrook’s contentions that she lacked mental capacity at the time of her plea and that she had a viable defense to Count One. Holbrook does not challenge this ruling on appeal.
. Our colleague in dissent labels this remedy the "Trial Remedy,” post at 426, but as the only remedy that allows the Government to void the agreement, the label, "Voiding Remedy,” is perhaps more apt.
. Our dissenting colleague suggests that our reading of the Agreement renders superfluous the phrase, "proceed to trial,” in Paragraph D(a). We disagree. The fact that the Agreement provides alternative avenues for the Government to try Holbrook on Count Two in the event of her breach does not negate the fact that, should the Government elect to void the Agreement under Paragraph D(a), it would then take her to trial.
. Wholly apart from her argument that the terms of the contract require the Government to void the Agreement in order to try Hol-brook on Count Two, Holbrook asserts that, as a matter of contract law, voiding the contract and restoration of the status quo ante is the only remedy available to the injured party when the other party breaches. To the contrary, contract law does not prevent an injured party from retaining the benefit of the contract up to the date of breach, while simultaneously pursuing other remedies for the breach. See, e.g., 11 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 922 (1979) (in actions for breach of contract, the law seeks to put the nonbreaching party in the position in which he or she would have been absent the breach); Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 506 (4th Cir.1986) (finding that an injured party is able to realize his or her expectations from the contract as if there had been no breach). To hold otherwise potentially could create the anomaly of allowing the breaching party to improve his or her position by reason of the breach. Accordingly, the Government was not precluded from enforcing the remaining provisions of the Agreement by virtue of Holbrook’s breach while retaining the benefit of Holbrook's pre-breach performance — i.e., her plea of guilty on Count One. See, e.g., United States v. Scruggs, 356 F.3d 539, 545 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that, where defendant had breached a plea agreement, Government was allowed to rely on provision in the plea agreement that allowed it to use statements made by the defendant in cooperating with the Government pursuant to the plea agreement). Thus, the Government’s pursuit of trial on Count Two in this case is not "crawfishing” as our colleague suggests, post at 433, but rather a permissible act authorized by well-established principles of contract law.
. We note further that, if the Government chose not to dismiss Count Two, but was precluded from proceeding to trial on Count Two, then Count Two, absent intervening circumstances, would be left in limbo, neither dismissed nor prosecuted. This result would violate the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3161-74 (West 2000 & Supp.2003), which requires the Government to try a defendant on any open counts within a certain period of time. Because we interpret contracts in light of the law existing at the time of execution, 11 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 32:7 (4th ed.1999) (explaining that “the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract bear upon the contract's meaning”); 2 E. Allan Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts § 7.10 (2d ed.1998) (explaining that "[t]he overarching principle of contract interpreta*424tion is that the court is free to look to all the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction[,] [including] the state of the law ... at the time [of execution]”), the necessary consequence of the elimination of the Government's duty to dismiss Count Two was a trial on that count.
. Contrary to our colleague's suggestion, see post at 27-28, our reading of the Agreement is fully consistent with our holding in United States v. Smith, 976 F.2d 861 (4th Cir.1992). In Smith, we reversed the district court because it misapplied Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 212 in construing an unambiguous provision in an immunity agreement. Id. at 864. Because the parties in that case did not mean for the provision in question to have an agreed upon meaning that was different from that which was facially suggested, the district court erred in not reverting to the unambiguous text. Id. at 864-65. As explained above, the Agreement here unambiguously allowed the Government to retry Hol-brook on Count Two without voiding the Agreement. Thus, our holding today does not implicate the holding in Smith at all.