
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nehemias LOPEZ-LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-1986-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2014.
    Charles F. Willson, Nevins Law Group LLC, East Hartford, CT, for Nehemias Lopez-Lueas.
    
      Stephan J. Baezynski, Assistant United States Attorney, for William J. Hochul, Jr., ; United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Nehemias Lopez-Lucas appeals from a judgment convicting him, following his plea of guilty, of illegally reentering the United States after having previously been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and sentencing him principally to 46 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Defendant challenges only his sentence on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

<rWaivers of the right to appeal a sentence are presumptively enforceable.” United States v. Arevalo, 628 F.3d 93, 98 (2d Cir.2010). We have “repeatedly upheld the validity of appeal waivers if they are knowingly, voluntarily, and competently provided by the defendant.” United States v. Coston, 737 F.3d 235, 237 (2d Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[Wjhile we will void an appeal waiver that violates certain fundamental rights, other meaningful errors are insufficient to void an appeal waiver.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

On December 20, 2012, defendant entered into a written plea agreement pursuant to which he “knowingly waive[d] the right to appeal and collaterally attack.any component of a sentence imposed by the Court which falls within or is less than,” inter alia, 41 to 51 months’ imprisonment and 1 to 3 years’ supervised release. Furthermore, at his plea colloquy, defendant expressly acknowledged that he understood he was waiving his right to appeal. Accordingly, defendant’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and, therefore, enforceable. Because the sentence imposed by the District Court was consistent with the terms and conditions of the plea agreement, defendant’s appeal must be dismissed.

We have considered all of the arguments raised by defendant on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, defendant’s appeal' is DISMISSED.  