
    Leon E. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-appellant, v. NEVADA PROPERTY 1 LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-17189
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016
    Leon E. Campbell, Pro Se
    Justin Lee Carley, Esquire, Kelly Harrison Dove, Esquire, Attorney, Alexander L. Fugazzi, Esquire, Attorney, Michael L. Iosua, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leon E. Campbell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award and deny a motion to vacate the award. Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court properly granted Nevada Property 1 LLC’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, and properly denied Campbell’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, because Campbell failed to show that the arbitrator exceeded the powers afforded by the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4); Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Arbitrators exceed their powers ... not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the award is completely irrational, or exhibits a manifest disregard of law,” (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, Int’l Typographical Union, 686 F.2d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding an award based on an arbitrator’s interpretation of a contract term drew its essence from the agreement where it “represent[ed] a plausible interpretation of the contract.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider any claims that Campbell did not raise before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication arid is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     