Glenn Michael Bonano, Sr., pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Bonano to ten years imprisonment. Bonano appeals his sentence, challenging the district court’s application of a ten-year statutory minimum sentence and denial of a safety-valve reduction.

Relying on the appeal waiver in the plea agreement, the Government seeks dismissal of the appeal or, alternatively, summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. Proceeding pro se, Bonano contends that the waiver does not bar his appeal because the appeal waiver did not explicitly state that he waived his right to appeal an illegal sentence or one based on an error of law. We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002).

The waiver provision broadly waived Bo-nano’s right to appeal his sentence without reservation. 1 The record of his rearraignment shows that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, as Bonano knew he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right in the plea agreement. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the plain language of the waiver provision applies to Bonano’s challenges to his sentence, we will enforce the waiver and DISMISS the appeal. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544, 546 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government’s motion to dismiss is *548 GRANTED, and its alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.