RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. A jury found that nurses Melissa Furnace, Chad Goetterman, and James Mollo (collectively, the Defendants) were deliberately indifferent to Wade Jones’s medical condition while Jones was incarcerated at the Kent County Correctional Facility (the Jail). The jury also found that the Defendants’ deliberate indifference was a proximate cause of Jones’s subsequent death, and it awarded Jones’s Estate $6.4 million in compensatory damages.

On appeal, the Defendants contend that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. They raise the following four arguments: (1) that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, (2) that no reasonable jury could have found that the Defendants’ deliberate indifference was a proximate cause of Jones’s death, (3) that the Estate’s counsel committed “contumacious conduct” when she cried while examining one of the Estate’s witnesses, and (4) that a juror’s alleged misconduct in failing to disclose his criminal history during voir dire should result in a new trial.

After reviewing the trial record and the applicable law, we conclude that all of the Defendants’ arguments lack merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. After carjacking a gas-station customer and robbing a bank, Don Ellis pleaded guilty to several offenses. He admitted that he had, among other things, twice used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On appeal, Ellis argues that the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. He also argues that his indictment failed to allege a § 924(c) offense. And he argues that the court constructively amended the indictment to fix this error. But all three claims suffer from the same problem: Ellis waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. He nevertheless suggests that we may hear these claims because he did not knowingly plead guilty. He adds that the alleged indictment error qualifies as a jurisdictional defect that he could not waive. Because both arguments lack merit, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal.