865 F.2d 264
Unpublished Disposition
Charles JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Peter M. CARLSON, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
No. 88-15195.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* Dec. 12, 1988.
Decided Dec. 16, 1988.
Before HUG and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM P. GRAN,** Senior District Judge.
MEMORANDUM***
Charles James appeals pro se from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court rejected James' argument that failure to inform him of the conditions of his mandatory release, which included a prohibition against unauthorized "use ... [of] narcotic[s] or other habit-forming drugs," 28 C.F.R. Sec. 2.40(a)(9) (1988), rendered the subsequent revocation of his release status for drug use a violation of due process. We review the denial of a petition for habeas corpus de novo. Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.1986).
James acknowledges that, after his release from prison, he repeatedly used narcotics and habit-forming drugs, and that his urine samples, taken on nine separate occasions between November 18, 1986, and January 9, 1987, showed the presence of morphine, cocaine and phenobarbital. James nonetheless contends that failure to inform him that use of these drugs would warrant revocation of his mandatory release status amounted to a denial of due process.
James' appeal is foreclosed United States v. Dane, 570 F.2d 840 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 959 (1978), where we held that "knowledge of the criminal law is imputed to the probationer, as is an understanding that violation of the law will lead to the revocation of probation." Dane, 570 F.2d at 844. It is a misdemeanor under California law (the state in which James resided at the time he tested positive for drugs and where his revocation hearing was held), to "use, or be under the influence of any controlled substance," including cocaine and heroin. Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 11550 (West Supp.1988). The "use" proscribed by section 11550 may be inferred from urine tests revealing the presence of controlled substances. People v. Jones, 189 Cal.App.3d 398, 405-06, 234 Cal.Rptr. 408, 413 (1987). James therefore had constructive notice that violation of the law would result in forfeiture of his mandatory release status.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
The Honorable William P. Gray, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3