                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        _____________________

                             No. 99-11145
                        _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          Plaintiff-Appellee

     v.

EULALIO VARGAS-BUENO

          Defendant - Appellant

__________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
          for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo
                      USDC No. 6:99-CR-21-1-C
___________________________________________________________________
                           August 9, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, REYNALDO G. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit
Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The Defendant-Appellant Eulalio Vargas-Bueno waived his right

to appeal the issues that he presents here.     A defendant may, as a

part of a valid plea agreement, waive his statutory right to appeal

his sentence.   See United States v Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th

Cir. 1992).    To be valid, the waiver must be an informed one.   See

id. at 567.     Contrary to Vargas’ argument on appeal, a district

court’s misstatements at a sentencing hearing as to a defendant’s

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
right to appeal, made after the defendant entered into a plea

agreement, do not affect the voluntariness of a waiver of appeal

provision.    See id. at 568.   When the record clearly shows that the

defendant read and understood the plea agreement and that he raised

no question regarding the waiver of appeal provision, the plea

agreement is upheld.     See United States v Portillo, 18 F.3d 290,

292-93 (5th Cir. 1994).     This case differs from United States v

Robinson, 187 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 1999), in that in this case,

unlike in Robinson, the district court determined through its

questioning that Vargas-Bueno had read and understood the plea

agreement.1

     All outstanding motions are DENIED.

     DISMISSED.




     1
       We note that the plea agreement at issue here predates the
amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 that became
effective December 1, 1999.
