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:T43a,MEMORANDUM Jesus Andrade appeals from the 151- month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a member of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a), (b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Andrade contends that the district court committed plain error by imposing an im-permissibly vague and overbroad supervised release condition, which, among other things, prohibits him from associating with persons known to him to be associated with Florencia 13 gang members. Because the condition is neither impermissi-bly vague nor overbroad, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam); United States v. Ross, 476 F.3d 719, 721-23 (9th Cir.2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T467,

MEMORANDUM

Jesus Andrade appeals from the 151- month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a member of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a), (b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Andrade contends that the district court committed plain error by imposing an im-permissibly vague and overbroad supervised release condition, which, among other things, prohibits him from associating with persons known to him to be associated with Florencia 13 gang members. Because the condition is neither impermissi-bly vague nor overbroad, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam); United States v. Ross, 476 F.3d 719, 721-23 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

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