
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Young KANG, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50161
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 7, 2018  Pasadena, California
    Filed February 9, 2018
    Julian Lucien Andre, Anil J. Antony, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Poo-nam G. Kumar, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Diane Bang, Jennifer LaGrange, James W. Spertus, Attorney, Spertus, Landes <& Umhofer, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, 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 Edward R. Korman, United ■States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen Kang appeals the district court’s decision to seal a restitution order. Because Kang signed a valid appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal.

1. Kang’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal “the amount and terms of any restitution order.” One of the restitution order’s terms provides for sealing. We analyze plea agreements under contract law, United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1337 (9th Cir. 1993), and a contract term providing for confidentiality is generally enforceable, see Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Mower, 219 F.3d 1069, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Term, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining terms as “[provisions that define an agreement’s scope; conditions or stipulations”).

2. Kang argues that because the waiver is located in a section of the plea agreement entitled “limited mutual waiver of appeal of sentence,” it applies only to his sentence. That argument fails, as the waiver expressly covers the “terms of the restitution order.”

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     