Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Wayne OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-26
Citations: 310 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 08-30124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Wayne OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Wayne OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30124.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 26, 2009.
Paulette L. Stewart, USHE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for De-fendanb-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Wayne Osborne appeals from the revocation of probation and the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Osborne contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by revoking his probation based on information not contained in the allega tion. We conclude that the information contained in the revocation petition was sufficient. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2603, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); see also United States v. Havier, 155 F.3d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1998).
Osborne also contends that he did not receive sufficient notice that his probation could be revoked on the basis that he was fired from his job. We conclude that Osborne received sufficient notice. See United States v. Dane, 570 F.2d 840, 843-45 (9th Cir.1977).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.