David Wayne Hatcher appeals the restitution order imposed in connection with his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of child pornography. He argues that the appeal-waiver provision in his plea agreement does not bar this appeal because he is challenging a restitution order, which results in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. Regarding the restitution order, Hatcher contends that the district court erred by not requiring the Government to prove that the victim’s losses under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E) were proximately caused by his conduct. The Government has moved for summary affir-mance, asserting that Hatcher’s argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent.

As Hatcher acknowledges, his challenge to the restitution order is foreclosed by our recent decision in In re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749, 762 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc), cert. granted, Paroline v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2886, 186 L.Ed.2d 932 (2013), wherein we held that the types of losses listed in § 2259(b)(3)(A)-(E) do not require a finding of proximate causation. Hatcher raises the issue to preserve it for further review. Because Hatcher’s only appellate issue is foreclosed, we pretermit whether Hatcher’s appeal is barred by his appeal waiver. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.