
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Antonio YANTEN-MORA, also known as Louis Antonio Mora, also known as Jose Manuel Moraleslopez, also known as Valencia Nilson, also known as Luis Antonio Yanten Mora, also known as Miguel Valencia-Mora, also known as Antonio Franklin, also known as Tony Mora, also known as Jair Humberto Valenciacastillo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-20299
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 15, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mervyn M. Mosbacker, Jr., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Antonio Yanten-Mora appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been removed. For the first time, Yanten-Mora argues that the district court erred in denying the Government’s recommendation that he receive a departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K3.1 and that the district court failed to sufficiently articulate its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence.

The Government asserts that the appeal waiver bars this appeal. As part of his plea agreement, Yanten-Mora agreed to “knowingly and voluntarily waive[] the right to appeal the conviction and the sentence imposed or the manner in which it was determined.”

Yanten-Mora does not address the validity of the waiver in his brief, nor has he filed a reply brief to answer the Government’s waiver argument. Thus, given the plain language of the waiver and Yanten-Mora’s written certification that he read, understood, and “carefully reviewed every part of’ the plea agreement with his attorney, the appeal waiver bars the instant appeal. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.2005). Further, defense counsel is cautioned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and failing to address the waiver in a reply brief after it was raised in the Government’s brief constitute a needless waste of judicial resources and could result in the imposition of sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, because Yanten-Mora’s appeal of his sentence is without merit, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th CiR. R. 42.2. 
      
       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.
     