his conviction, sentence, or restitution order to any court on any ground. He contends that the inclusion of “restitution” suggests that “sentence” refers only to the period of incarceration. (If “sentence” included “restitution,” then the plea might include superfluous terms— a result we disfavor. See United States v. Rourke, 74 F.3d 802, 807 (7th Cir.1996)). Thus, he argues, the conditions of supervised release are not part of his “sentence” as that term is used in his plea agreement. Cf. id. at 806 (significant ambiguities in a plea agreement should be construed in favor of the defendant). However, Adkins’ argument conflicts with our precedent, which suggests that terms of supervised release are part of the sentence. See United States v. Sines, 303 F.3d 793, 798-99 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also id. at 799 n. 3 (“[W]e find that Mr.
holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence holding that under subsection al as then written the defendant had no right to appeal whether his sentence was supported by evidence presented because he entered into a plea agreement as to the sentence holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where njothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release andthere was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where nothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release and there was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added