Accordingly, we conclude that the government did not breach the plea agreement and that the appeal wavier bars Metheny's appeal.United States v. Metheny, 671 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2016).

In this Circuit, similar integration clauses bar a defendant from later claiming breach of an undocumented promise. See, e.g., Sears v. Lewis, 956 F.2d 1167, 1992 WL 45761, at *2 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that even if the facts constituting the alleged breach of a plea promise were true, there was no violation of the plea agreement where the promise was not documented in the agreement and the defendant certified in the agreement that any promise not contained in the agreement was null and void); United States v. Metheny, 671 Fed. Appx 647 (mem) (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that the government did not breach a plea agreement where the plea was silent regarding the allegedly broken promise and the plea contained an integration clause "expressly disclaiming any promises not set forth in the agreement"); United States v. Garibay-Mares, CV 07-2644 PHX-NVW(LOA), 2008 WL 4630343, at *10 (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2008) (concluding that the defendant failed to present evidence that a promise was made that induced him into his plea agreement where the defendant confirmed in the written plea agreement itself and in subsequent declarations to the court, that there were no unwritten promises that induced his decision to enter the plea, and the plea agreement contained an integration clause disclaiming all unwritten promises); see also United States v. Anderson, CV07-1947-PHX-DGC (LOA), 2008 WL 4949174, at *4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2008) (concluding that the defendant failed to present evidence that a promise was made that induced him into his plea agreement where