Abel Castillo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release. The offense occurred on or about May 31, 2003; however, the Government did not file the indictment until January 9, 2008. On appeal, Castillo argues that the Government’s pre-indictment delay violated his due process rights and that the district court clearly erred in not making specific findings on the issue.

Castillo did not raise the issue of pre-indictment delay prior to sentencing, nor did he manifest an intention to preserve the issue for appeal by entering a conditional guilty plea. See United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915-16 (5th Cir. 1992). A review of the plea colloquy reveals that the district court provided the appropriate admonitions to ensure that Castillo entered a voluntary guilty plea and understood the consequences of entering the plea. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Chim. 11. Accordingly, because Castillo entered an unconditional and voluntary guilty plea, this court is precluded from considering the merits of his pre-indictment delay claim. See United States v. Sealed Appellant, 526 F.3d 241, 242 (5th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 521, 172 L.Ed.2d 383 (2008); Bell, 966 F.2d at 915-16; United States v. Brice, 565 F.2d 336, 337 (5th Cir. 1977).

AFFIRMED.