MEMORANDUM *

Sumpter argues that the settlement underlying the plan isn’t fair and equitable; that the plan’s treatment of Class 4 claims violates 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4); that the plan was proposed in bad faith; and that the plan contains an impermissible exculpation clause. But the plan at issue in Sumpter’s first appeal was identical to the one he now challenges, so he could have raised all of those arguments at that time. Accordingly, Sumpter “waived [his] right” to raise his current objections by failing to raise them in his prior appeal. See In re Cellular 101, Inc., 539 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Munoz v. Cnty. of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 1982).

AFFIRMED.