
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Ivan ARMENDARIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50835.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 13, 2005.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Kuchera, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hector Ivan Armendariz appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Armendariz asserts his guilty plea was not given knowingly and voluntarily because the magistrate judge did not comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Because Armendariz did not object on this basis in district court, our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). To demonstrate plain-error, Armendariz must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc). Armendariz has not made such a showing.

Alternatively, Armendariz contends the appeal-waiver provision in his plea agreement is invalid due to Rule 11 error. The magistrate judge determined Armendariz read and understood his plea agreement, and Armendariz raised no question regarding the waiver-of-appeal provision before the district court. Accordingly, he is bound by it. United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.2005).

Armendariz also claims, under United States v. Booker,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the district court erred when it sentenced him based on facts not admitted by him or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Because Armendariz’s appeal waiver was valid, and his Booker claim does not meet any exception to his waiver, Armendariz’s appeal of his sentence is DISMISSED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     