Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-28
Citations: 402 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 09-50621
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50621.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 28, 2010.
Gregory Lesser, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Jose Antonio Navarro appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Navarro contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) when it failed to resolve a dispute regarding the facts underlying a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight. But Navarro never argued that there were specific factual errors in the presentence report. Accordingly, the district court did not violate Rule 32(i)(3)(B). See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir.2008) ("Only specific factual objections trigger Rule 32(i)(3)(B)."). To the extent Navarro now challenges the factual basis for the enhancement, the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 553 n. 3 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.