The Ninth Circuit appears to be internally split on whether a charging document phrased in the conjunctive constitutes an admission of all the facts in the charge (i.e., a plea to a "permanent and temporary" taking necessary admits a permanent taking), or whether a plea to such language should be read in the disjunctive where the statute of conviction is disjunctive and the conjunctive charge is merely a device that allows the prosecution to prove either of the disjunctive options in the statute in order to convict (i.e., a plea to a "permanent and temporary" taking really means a plea to "permanent or temporary" taking, and the defendant is merely admitting that the taking was one or the other). Compare Malta-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2007) ("It is common to charge conjunctively when an underlying statute proscribes more than one act disjunctively; such a charge permits conviction upon proof that the defendant committed either of the conjunctively charged acts"); Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. July 25, 2005) ("Reference in the indictment to "stolen, converted and fraudulently obtained property," as opposed to "stolen, converted or taken by fraud," as recited in the statute does not mean that Omari was necessarily convicted of transferring fraudulently obtained property. Indictments often allege conjunctively elements that are disjunctive in the statute, and this does not require either the government prove all of the statutorily disjunctive elements or that a defendant admit to all of them when pleading guilty."); United States v. Bonanno, 852 F.2d 434, 441 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Where a statute specifies two or more ways in which an offense may be committed, all may be alleged in the conjunctive in one count and proof of any one of those acts conjunctively charged may establish guilt."); In re Bushman, 1 Cal.3d 767, 775 (1970) ("Where a statute such as a Penal Code section lists several acts in the disjunctive, any of which constitutes an offense, a complaint, in alleging more than one of such acts, should do so in the conjunctive to avoid uncertainty. Merely because the complaint is phrased in the conjunctive, however, does not prevent a trier of fact from convicting a defendant if the evidence proves only one of the alleged acts.") (citations omitted), with United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 523 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2008) ("When a defendant pleads guilty ... to facts stated in the conjunctive, each factual allegation is taken as true. United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Mathews, 833 F.2d at 164). The count in Aguila-Montes's complaint to which he pleaded guilty stated that he entered an inhabited dwelling house and trailer coach and inhabited portion of a building.... Therefore, Aguila-Montes admitted to entering not only a dwelling house, but also a trailer coach and the inhabited portion of a building."); United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 393 F.3d 849, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 852 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989); United States v. Harris, 108 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 1997). The disjunctive reading clearly seems more in keeping with reality, since a conjunctive reading may often result in the defendant admitting to two or more different acts or mental states that are mutually exclusive, contradictory or impossible.