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:T4b6,MEMORANDUM Kum Soon Yoo appeals from the 97-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams net weight of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we dismiss. Yoo contends that the district court erred when determining her base offense level because it improperly attributed at least 1.5 kilograms of “ice” to her and failed to require the government to prove the quantity and purity of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. However, her intentional withdrawal of her objection regarding this issue constitutes a waiver for purposes of appeal. See United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926 , 930 n. 1 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (“Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e3,

MEMORANDUM

Kum Soon Yoo appeals from the 97-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams net weight of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we dismiss.

Yoo contends that the district court erred when determining her base offense level because it improperly attributed at least 1.5 kilograms of “ice” to her and failed to require the government to prove the quantity and purity of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. However, her intentional withdrawal of her objection regarding this issue constitutes a waiver for purposes of appeal. See United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926 , 930 n. 1 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (“Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISMISSED.

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