MEMORANDUM ***

Contrary to Aguilera’s assertions, the district court informed him that pleading guilty would constitute a waiver of his right to have the government prove to a jury the elements of the crime and the amount of the drugs charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, Aguilera admitted personally supplying the charged amount of drugs. See United States v. Lococo, 514 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Nothing in the record supports his contention that his plea was “coerced” by the court or the government.

The district court properly overruled Aguilera’s objection to the pre-sentence report’s recommended leadership role adjustment, and to the extent Aguilera objected to its calculation of drug quantity, the district court ruled on that issue as well when it reaffirmed its conclusion that 38 was the correct base offense level. Aguilera did not raise any specific factual disputes regarding either issue that required resolution by the district judge. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008).

Finally, contrary to Aguilera’s assertion, the district court gave him sufficient opportunity to allocute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 813 (9th Cir. 2008). Aguilera points to no authority that says the opportunity to allocute must come at some early stage in the sentencing proceedings. A judge only has to let defendants speak “[bjefore imposing [a] sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A).

Aguilera’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.