Rogelio Castaneda pleaded guilty to one charge of distribution of material involving sexual exploitation of a minor. The district court sentenced him to serve 108 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Castaneda seeks to challenge his sentence despite the appellate-waiver clause in his plea agreement. Castaneda argues that the waiver should not be enforced because he did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to it, because *412 the Government did not fulfill its obligations under the plea agreement, and because counsel rendered ineffective assistance in relation to the waiver.

This court will dismiss an appeal that is precluded by a valid waiver. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 747 (5th Cir. 2005). There is nothing in the record to indicate that Castaneda’s waiver was not knowing and voluntary. To the contrary, Castaneda’s sworn statements at re-arraignment support a conclusion that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). The record also refutes Castaneda’s claim that the Government breached the plea agreement, as the Government’s representations at sentencing were consistent with the plea agreement. See United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002).

Castaneda did not present his argument that his waiver was involuntary due to counsel’s ineffectiveness in the district court. Consequently, the record is not developed in relation to this claim, and we decline to consider it. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir. 1996).

The plain language of the waiver covers the claims that Castaneda seeks to present in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is DISMISSED.