
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ARREDONDO-PILLADO, aka Chapo, aka Jose Pillado Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10505.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2015.
    Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Amber Marie Craig, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CHRISTEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Arredondo-Pillado appeals his conviction and sentence, and moves to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

Arredondo-Pillado pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government containing a waiver of appeal rights that he concedes bars this appeal if valid. Arredondo-Pillado challenges his waiver of appeal rights solely on the ground that it was not knowing or voluntary because the Government failed to disclose, prior to the execution of his plea agreement, evidence which he contends the Government was obliged to turn over pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny.

Arredondo-Pillado’s Brady argument fails because, as he concedes, the evidence he identifies is neither exculpatory nor material impeachment evidence, and hence is not Brady material. United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir.2011).

Because no Brady violation occurred, and because Arredondo-Pillado raises no other argument challenging the voluntariness of his appeal waiver, we enforce it and affirm. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir.2007) (affirming the defendant’s sentence pursuant to the enforcement óf an appeal waiver).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Because we affirm, Arredondo-Pillado’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is DENIED.
     