challenging “a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum.” See Ferguson, 669 F,3d at 766 (rejecting defendant’s argument that a condition of supervised release constituted a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum because allowing that sort of challenge under a similar appeal waiver “would potentially render waivers meaningless” (internal citations omitted)). The knowing and. voluntary appellate waiver thus precludes our review. We nonetheless note that Qu’s appeal would not succeed even if we reached its merits. Because he did not object at the sentencing hearing, our review is limited to plain error. He thus must show, among other things, that the district court’s error was clear or obvious. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59,122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135,
holding that we review for plain error whether the government breached its plea obligations when the defendant fails to object at sentencing holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that plain error review applies where the defendant fails to object to the lack of an opportunity to allocute holding that where a defendant fails to challenge his plea in district court he must establish plain error holding that a defendant who fails to object to an error at a plea colloquy hearing must satisfy the plain error rule