Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50071 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. LUI S M ANUEL AGUI LA R D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 7 : 0 7
- CR- 1 5 0
- ALL
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * L u i s M an u elA gu i l ar pl ead ed gu i ltyto one cha rge of bei n g a conv i ct ed fel on i n pos se ss i on of a f i r ear m , and t he di st r i c tc our ts ent enc ed hi m t o s erve 120 m on t h s i n pri son. A gu i l ar a pp eal s h i s sen t en ce. H e argu es t h at t h e prosecutor com m i t t ed m i scondu ctby m ak i n g cert ai n rem arks at s e nt e nc i ng. H e al so argues th a t h e is e n tit le dt o r e s e n te n c in gb e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e n o fin d in g s in suppor tof

i t s c onc l usi on t hata f our - l eve ls ent enc i ngadj ust m ents houl d be United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50071

2 ap pl i e d a nd b e c aus e no e vi de nc e pe r t ai ni ng t o t hi s adj us t m e ntw as o f fe r e d a tt he hear i ng. T h e G overnm en targu es t h at th e app ealshou l d be d i sm issed becau se Agui l arw aive d hi s r i ghtt o a ppe ala nd b e c aus e t he w aive ri s v ali d a nd enf or c eabl e. The G ove r nm ental so as se r t s t ha t A gu i l ar ’ s pro se c ut or i al m i scon d u ct cl a i m i s w i th ou t m erit. T h is co u r t r e v ie w s t h e v a lid ityo f a n a p p e a l w a iv e rd e n o v o . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B aym on , 312 F .3d 7 2 5 , 7 2 7 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. O u r r evi ew of t h e rec ord sho w s t hatA gui l ar ’ s w aiverof hi s appel l at e r i ght s w as know i ng and vol untar y. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Bond , 4 1 4 F .3 d5 4 2 , 5 4 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A g u ila r ’ s cla im s c o nc e r ni ng t he di s put e d s e nt e nc i ng adj us t m e ntfallw it hi n t he s c o pe of t he w a iv e r . W e th u s d e c lin e to co n s id e rth e s e cla im s . Se ei d. Th e a ppel l at e w aiverc l ause f ound i n A gui l ar ’ s pl ea agr ee m e ntc o nt ai ns an expli c i t exce p ti on f

or claim s con cern i ng pr os ec ut ori alm i sc onduct
. Conseque nt ly, consi derati on of

hi s c l ai m concerni n g t h e prosecutor ’ s al l egedi m proper s t a t e m e n t s a ts e n t e n c in gis n o tb a r r e db yth e w a iv e r . N e v e r t h e le s s , A g u il a r ’s pro se c ut or i alm i sc onductc l ai m l ac ks m er i t . O ur r evi ew of t he r ec or d s how s t hat t h e di spu t ed s t atem en t s w ere n ot i m proper an d c au sed n o prej u di ce t o A gu i l ar. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L an kf ord , 19 6 F. 3d 56 3, 57 4 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 9)
. The j udg m e nt o f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.