
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Miguel DIAZ-OSUNA, also known as Pariente, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-60212 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 21, 2017
    Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s • Office Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, Patrick A. Lemon, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brenda G. Jackson Patterson, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hector Miguel Diaz-Osuna appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence following his jury trial conviction of conspiracy to cause a riot in a federal prison and his guilty plea conviction of voluntary manslaughter of a federal prison guard. Diaz-Osuna challenges only the jury trial conviction, arguing that that the evidence was insufficient and that the district court erred in giving an Allen charge. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver in Diaz-Osu-na’s plea agreement. Diaz-Osuna’s opening brief did not address the waiver and he has not responded to the Government’s argument.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Diaz-Osuna’s waiver was knowing and voluntary as the record shows that he knew he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right by entering the plea agreement. See. United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014). Also, the waiver plainly applies to his challenge to his jury trial conviction. See id. Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss and DENY the alternative motion for summary affirmance. Counsel for Diaz-Osuna is cautioned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources and could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896).
     