Deon Manning appeals following his guilty plea conviction. He contends that he did not knowing!y and freely waive his right to appeal the constitutional reasonableness of his sentence, and, as a result, he is entitled to argue on appeal that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender and erroneously increased his base offense level based on post-arrest statements. He also posits that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

As the government contends, Manning’s arguments regarding his sentence are barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement, which was knowing, voluntary, and enforceable. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994); Fed. R.CrimP. ll(b)(l)(N). The record is insufficiently developed to address Manning’s ineffective-assistance claims. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, the judgment is AFFIRMED.