Landrigan was officially decided by the Ninth Circuit on remand, following reversal by the Supreme Court in Schriro v. Landrigan. Denial of habeas affirmed.

Parole Violation Warrants: "We consider whether an administrative warrant issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4213(a) for the retaking of an alleged parole violator is subject to the oath or affirmation requirement of the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. We hold it is not and therefore affirm the denial of petitioner’s habeas challenge to his detention on an unsworn parole violator warrant." Sherman v. U. S. Parole Comm'n.

Chutzpah: Once upon a time, the comical exemplar of that term was the man who murdered his parents and then begged for mercy on the ground he was an orphan. The joke was no longer funny after the Menendez Brothers. Here is a good candidate for a new exemplar from a real Ninth Circuit case.

Russell Laroy Holland appeals his conviction and sentence for mailing threatening communications and threatening the President of the United States. He maintains that the district court judge who imposed the sentence should have recused himself after Holland obtained the judge’s home telephone number and left at least one threatening message prior to his sentencing.

Hey, it was worth a shot. No argument is too preposterous if you get the right panel in the Ninth, and you don't know the panel when you write the brief. Mr. Holland's opus, however, went to Judges Thompson, Kleinfeld, & Bybee. Affirmed.