Edward Jorodge Gladney seeks to appeal the 60-year sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to four counts of producing child pornography and one count of *395 advertising child pornography. In his plea agreement he waived his right to appeal, but he argues that the waiver is invalid because he was not sufficiently advised of the breadth and effect of the waiver.

The district court accurately explained the terms and consequences of the waiver in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ll(b)(l)(N), and Gladney stated on the record, under oath, in open court that he understood the waiver. His contention now that he did not really understand the waiver does not invalidate it. See United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2011). Gladney’s challenge to the court’s fully adequate explanation of the waiver is frivolous because it involves no “legal points arguable on their merits” and fails to make any colorable showing of error, plain or otherwise. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. Rule 42.2 (providing that an appeal “will be dismissed” if it “is frivolous and entirely without merit”).

Because the waiver is valid, we do not consider Gladney’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See Jacobs, 635 F.3d at 783. The appeal is DISMISSED.