22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T46c,MEMORANDUM Dennis Hopkins appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), and a dismissal for failure to follow the district court’s order to pay the filing fee, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 986 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hopkins’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Hopkins did not account for his different statements regarding his employment history or otherwise verify his claim of poverty. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hopkins’s complaint because Hopkins did not comply with the district court’s previous order to pay the filing fee. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T49e,

MEMORANDUM

Dennis Hopkins appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion a denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), and a dismissal for failure to follow the district court’s order to pay the filing fee, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 , 986 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hopkins’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Hopkins did not account for his different statements regarding his employment history or otherwise verify his claim of poverty. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hopkins’s complaint because Hopkins did not comply with the district court’s previous order to pay the filing fee. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.