UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deon MANNING, Defendant-Appellant, 404 F. App'x 874

PER CURIAM: Deon Manning appeals following his guilty plea conviction. He contends that he did not knowing!y and freely waive his right to appeal the constitutional reasonableness of his sentence, and, as a result, he is entitled to argue on appeal that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender and erroneously increased his base offense level based on post-arrest statements. He also posits that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

As the government contends, Manning’s arguments regarding his sentence are barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement, which was knowing, voluntary, and enforceable. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.1994); Fed. R.CrimP. ll(b)(l)(N). The record is insufficiently developed to address Manning’s ineffective-assistance claims. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Thus, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir.

R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.