Congress knows how to refer to military criminal offenses if it wishes to do so. For example, Congress recently provided, with respect to a specific new statute, that "The term `criminal offense' means a State, local, tribal, foreign, or military offense (to the extent specified by the Secretary of Defense under section 115(a)(8)(C)(i) of Public Law 105-119 (10 U.S.C. 951 note)) or other criminal offense." The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, H.R. 4472, Pub. L. 109-248, 111(6) (July 27, 2006).

United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. Jul. 24, 2006) (border search exception to warrant requirements, allowing government to conduct routine searches of persons entering United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or warrant applies to noncitizen who had attempted to enter Canada, but was turned back; defendant was in same position as any applicant for admission).

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. August 1, 2006) ("If the government on remand continues to assert that the police reports, which Almazan-Becerra's counsel stipulated constituted a factual basis for his disjunctive plea, support application of the enhancement, the district court will need to determine whether this case can be distinguished from United States v. Shepard.").
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0510056p.pdf

United States v. Charleswell, 456 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. Aug. 1, 2006) (collateral attack of deportation order upon prosecution for illegal re-entry may include an attack on the original deportation order as well as the reinstated order upon which the illegal re-entry charges are based; "[r]einstatement orders do not exist independent and separate from their prior orders of removal but are instead explicitly premised on the prior order. See 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5)")
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/044513p.pdf

Bobb v. Atty Gen. of the United States, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (to constitute aggravated felony "forgery" under INA 101(a)(43)(R) the offense must be "related to" forgery, i.e., show or establish a logical connection with forgery; a forgery offense does not necessarily require proof of an intent to defraud; 18 U.S.C. 510(b) [exchange of forged Treasury instruments] given as example of a forgery offense that is "related to" forgery, but does not involve fraud), following Drakes v. Zimski, 240 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2001).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/052891p.pdf

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. August 1, 2006) ("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law."), quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

Note: United States v. Almazan-Becerra, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 926486 (9th Cir. March 29, 2007) (making minor changes to prior opinion regarding Booker issues - new opinion otherwise the same as prior), prior opinion cited at 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2006) is hereby withdrawn.

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir.

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir.

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. August 1, 2006) (a guilty plea to facts stated in the conjunctive establishes each factual allegation as true), following United States v. Smith, 390 F.3d 661, 665 (9th Cir. 2004).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0510056p.pdf

Note: United States v. Almazan-Becerra, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 926486 (9th Cir. March 29, 2007) (making minor changes to prior opinion regarding Booker issues - new opinion otherwise the same as prior), prior opinion cited at 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2006) is hereby withdrawn.

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 456 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. August 1, 2006) ("The government tried to save the enhancement at oral argument by pointing to a statement of the counsel of Almazan-Becerra suggesting that the charged conduct involved sales. This argument is waived, however, both for the government's failure to raise it in its opening brief, see Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) ("on appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived"), and for its failure to raise it before the district court, see Monetary II Ltd. P'ship v.