               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 99-51014
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

JASON GRAMS,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Western District of Texas
                    USDC No. SA-98-CR-130-ALL
_________________________________________________________________
                          July 20, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Jason Grams appeals from his sentence after a guilty plea to

three counts of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 and two

counts of use of a firearm during a violent crime in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c).   We dismiss Grams's appeal.

     Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Grams waived his right

to appeal his sentence on any ground unless the punishment imposed

exceeded certain statutory maximums or forty-five years in prison.


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The district court's sentence did not exceed either of these terms.

Grams argues that his waiver is invalid because he could never

knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal a sentence

that has not yet been imposed at the time of the plea agreement.

We find Grams's argument unpersuasive.             The uncertainty of the

district    court's    sentence     does   not    render    Grams's   waiver

uninformed.      See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68

(5th Cir. 1992).

     We    are   satisfied   that    Grams's     waiver    was   voluntarily,

knowingly, and intelligently made.         The appeal is

                                                          D I S M I S S E D.




                                      2
