U.S. v. Hahn, No. 07-30324 (3-4-09). The defendant was serving a state sentence when he was convicted of being a felon in possession. At sentencing, the parties argued in memos about whether the sentence should run consecutive, or concurrently, or whether a departure was called for under 5G1.3(b). The district court seemingly reluctantly ran the sentence concurrently, despite misgivings about deterrence, because the court had not given notice of a possible departure under FRCP 32(h). "No need to," held the 9th in a per curiam decision, because all the parties were arguing over the issue and facts, and all were aware. Even the court had said that it was briefed. The case is remanded to allow for resentencing. In a concurrence, Kozinski stresses that the sentencing judge should have given a continuance rather than feel compelled to go further.