United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Gonzalez-gutierrez, Defendant-appellant, 70 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 1995)

Jose de Jesus Gonzalez-Gutierrez ("defendant") contends the district court erred in revoking his supervised release because the government failed to prove he knew the conditions of his release, and his crime causing revocation was a prior immigration felony, which is excluded under a provision in the sentencing guidelines. We affirm.

A court may impute notice and knowledge of conditions when their violation entails a criminal act. United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 790 (9th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, the government has no obligation to warn deported persons of the precise penalties which might attach if they reenter the country or commit a crime. United States v. Arzante-Nunez, 18 F.3d 730, 737 (9th Cir. 1994). Finally, when defendant was advised of the conditions of his supervised release, he had just been sentenced to prison for reentry after deportation. He is not in a credible position to argue that he did not know that another reentry would be a serious violation of the law.

Defendant's ambiguity argument also has no merit. The applicable statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, is not ambiguous. When a statute is not ambiguous, there is no need to "interpret" the language by resorting to extrinsic aids. United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992, 995 (9th Cir. 1993).

We have examined defendant's remaining arguments and determine them to be without merit. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.