Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delores ENOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 359 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 09-10024
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delores ENOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 359
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delores ENOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10024.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Alison Sue Bachus, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas M. Hoidal, Esquire, Hoidal & Hannah, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Delores Enos appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to modify a condition of probation that prohibits her from having contact with children under the age of 13 without prior permission from the court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Enos contends that the district court erred by declining to modify the condition of probation because the condition is dif ferent from that to which the parties stipulated in her Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. The district court did not err in denying Enos' motion to modify the conditions of her probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3568(c).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.