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.