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:T425,MEMORANDUM Ramiro Tony Flores appeals from the 150-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 , 1956(h), and 1957. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Flores contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32(i)(3)(B) by applying a four-level leadership role enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a), without resolving disputed portions of the presentence investigation report. The district court properly overruled Flores’ objection to the leadership role enhancement as he did not raise any specific factual disputes that required resolution by the district court. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2008); cf. United States v. Carter, 219 F.3d 863, 867-68 (9th Cir.2000). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T452,

MEMORANDUM

Ramiro Tony Flores appeals from the 150-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 , 1956(h), and 1957. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Flores contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32(i)(3)(B) by applying a four-level leadership role enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a), without resolving disputed portions of the presentence investigation report. The district court properly overruled Flores’ objection to the leadership role enhancement as he did not raise any specific factual disputes that required resolution by the district court. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2008); cf. United States v. Carter, 219 F.3d 863, 867-68 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

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