UNITED STATES v. RAUL ORTUÑO-HIGAREDA

dissenting:

The government was obviously upset by our earlier opinion in this case, United States v. Ortuño-Higareda, 421 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.2005), and immediately began easting its net for a different and more plausible argument. The government’s brand new argument, advanced for the first time in its petition for rehearing, has now been accepted by a majority of this panel. I must respectfully dissent. I would not entertain the government’s argument, as it is both waived and without merit.

As the majority properly states, we normally do not consider contentions that went unmentioned during the full round of briefing and oral argument, and these arguments are deemed waived. See, e.g., Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 395 F.3d 1062, 1063 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting argument “because it is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing”); Picazo v. Alameida, 366 F.3d 971, 971-72 (9th Cir.2004) (refusing to consider argument on petition for rehearing where issue had been raised “at no point in th[e] litigation”); Talk of the Town v. Dep’t of Finance and Business Servs., 353 F.3d 650, 650 (9th Cir.2003) (refusing to consider argument raised on petition for rehearing…

450 F.3d 406 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul ORTUÑO-HIGAREDA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-10257. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 7, 2005. Filed June 8, 2006. Francisco León, Tucson, AZ, for defendant-appellant Raul Ortuño-Higareda. Christina M. Cabanillas, Appellate Chief (on rehearing), and Nathan D. Leonardo, Assistant United States Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for plaintiff-appellee United States of America. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-00786-1-JMR. Before J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND OPINION RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge. ORDER 1 The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion and concurrence/dissent filed on August 26, 2005, are withdrawn. The superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed. Opinion 2 Raul Ortuño-Higareda ("Ortuño") challenges the revocation of his supervised release. Because we hold that the district court had…

ORDER AND OPINION

ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion and concurrence/dissent filed on August 26, 2005, are withdrawn. The superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed.

Opinion

Raul Ortuño-Higareda (“Ortuño”) challenges the revocation of his supervised release. Because we hold that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Ortuño’s supervised release, that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Ortuño violated the conditions of his supervised release, *408 and that he had imputed knowledge of those conditions, we AFFIRM.

I

BACKGROUND

Ortuño was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona of illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). He was sentenced to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. Condition one of Ortuño’s supervised release stated: “You shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervision.” Ortuño was also required to comply with two special conditions, the first of which stated: “If…