US v. Ortuno-Higaredo, No. 04-10257 (6-8-06). The 9th supersedes with this opinion, involving a SR violation. The 9th dismissed the prior SR revocation because the defendant was never informed orally or in writting that a violation of a federal, state, or local crime would be a basis for revocation. Case closed, right? Nope. The gov't, in a petition for rehearing, says "Wait! We have a better argument -- imputed knowledge, which there is some precedent for." The 9th (Rawlison) therefore chooses to ignore that this is a new argument, discounts waiver, and goes out of its way to say that prior precedent of imputation requires this finding of knowledge. Wallace, dissenting, argues that the gov't had its chance, and waived this argument. Moreover, there is no conflcit, because the defendnat here was never told of such a condition, and so imputation is a stretch. besides, the gov't could charge him with a new offense, and so why is the gov't messing around with this strained SR argument.

Little v. Crawford, No. 05-15364 (6-8-06). The 9th, in habeas, affirms the dismissal of a petition. The 9th holds that the failure to inform the petitioner at his plea colloquy that he was not eligible for probation did not violate due process or equal protetcion. The petitioner understood he was facing incarceration, and that he would have to serve at least 10 years.