
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Geraldo ARREDONDO, also known as Bobby, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-60036 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 17, 2017
    Patrick A. Lemon, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Julie Ann Epps, Esq,, Canton, MS, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Geraldo Arredondo appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to participating or assisting in a riot at a federal prison. Arre-dondo challenges the district court’s guidelines sentence range calculation, arguing that there was insufficient reliable evidence to support an increase in his base offense level. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver in Arredondo’s plea agreement.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, we conclude that the waiver was knowing and voluntary as the record shows that Arredondo knew he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right by entering into the plea agreement. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014). Arredondo’s argument that the appeal waiver should not be enforced because of an alleged violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ll(b)|l)(N) is unavailing. See id. at 736-37; United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 955 (5th Cir. 2013). Also, although Arredondo suggests that we should adopt a miscarriage of justice exception to the enforcement of an appeal waiver, we have previously declined to do so. United States v. De Cay, 359 Fed.Appx. 514, 516 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss and DENY the alternative motion for summary affir-mance.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     