MEMORANDUM *

Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals his 100-month sentence. 1 We affirm.

1. Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)’s 70-day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined. Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir. 2004).

Barraza-Lopez’s 100-month sentence— at the low end of an unchallenged Guidelines range — was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly discounted and explained why *677 it accorded greater weight to the aggravating evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge when the district court’s findings were “rational, clearly explained and closely tied to the factual record”).

AFFIRMED.