Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ARCURIA, III, a.k.a. Anthony Acuria, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 443 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 10-50621
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ARCURIA, III, a.k.a. Anthony Acuria, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ARCURIA, III, a.k.a. Anthony Acuria, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50621.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 15, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, As sistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joshua Robbins, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anthony Phillip Brooklier, Esquire, Marks & Brooklier, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anthony Arcuria, III, appeals from the 180-day sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arcuria contends that the government breached the plea agreement by arguing for a role enhancement that persuaded the court to impose a higher sentence. This contention lacks merit. The record reflects that the government fulfilled its obligation under the plea agreement not to recommend a leadership role enhancement. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.