Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morocco CURRY, a.k.a. Monica Dupree, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 439 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 10-50080
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morocco CURRY, a.k.a. Monica Dupree, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morocco CURRY, a.k.a. Monica Dupree, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50080.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 23, 2011.
Joseph Nicholas Akrotirianakis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Edward Dug-dale, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur Henry Weed, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Morocco Curry appeals from the 102-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
Curry contends that district court erred (i) by failing to address the sentence disparity between Curry and his co-defendants, (ii) in finding that a four-level aggravated role enhancement was applicable, and (iii) by failing to sua sponte consider the undischarged state sentence. The valid and enforceable appeal waiver precludes our review of these contentions. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 985-88 (9th Cir.2009).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.