ORDER AND OPINION
RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge.ORDER
The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion and concurrence/dissent filed on August 26, 2005, are withdrawn. The superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed.
Opinion
Raul Ortuño-Higareda (“Ortuño”) challenges the revocation of his supervised release. Because we hold that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Ortuño’s supervised release, that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Ortuño violated the conditions of his supervised release, *408and that he had imputed knowledge of those conditions, we AFFIRM.
I
BACKGROUND
Ortuño was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona of illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He was sentenced to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment followed by thirty-six months of supervised release. Condition one of Ortuño’s supervised release stated: “You shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervision.” Ortuño was also required to comply with two special conditions, the first of which stated: “If deported, you shall not re-enter the United States without legal authorization.”
At Ortuño’s sentencing hearing on August 4, 2000, the court specifically informed Ortuño that if he reentered the United States within three years after serving his sentence, he would be in violation of the conditions of his release. The court further noted that such a violation could result in Ortuño’s imprisonment for another three years. When asked if he understood, Ortuño answered, “[y]es.”
Ortuño was released from federal custody on August 13, 2001. He was deported that same day. In such a case, the inmate is released directly into the custody of the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).1 No probation officer meets with the inmate following release.
On May 1, 2003, Ortuño was apprehended by the Border Patrol at or near Jote Mesa, California and arrested for reentering the country without authorization. A criminal complaint was filed against Or-tuño in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Subsequently, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release and a Warrant for Arrest were filed in the District of Arizona. The Petition to Revoke Supervised Release charged that Ortuño violated the release conditions imposed when he was sentenced.
An evidentiary hearing on the petition to revoke supervised release was held before a magistrate judge. At the hearing, the government presented the testimony of Border Patrol Agent George Allen. During his testimony, Agent Allen was in possession of Ortuño’s original A-file.2 Contained in that A-file and admitted into evidence was the arrest report, or Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, for Ortu-ño, dated May 1, 2003. According to Agent Allen’s testimony, the report indicated that Ortuño’s entry status was without authorization and that his last known entry into the United States occurred on May 1, 2003, at or near Jote Mesa, California. The report also contained a statement describing Ortuño’s apprehension by the Border Patrol.
Another document in the A-file was the criminal complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Agent Allen testified that the complaint contained a similar description of Ortuño’s apprehension. Finally, the A-file contained the results of a fingerprint examination. The results reflected a match between the fingerprints *409taken from Ortuño and fingerprints previously lodged in Ortuño’s A-file.3
On cross-examination, counsel for Ortu-ño asked Agent Allen whether there was any record of a conviction for the May 1, 2003 illegal re-entry charge. Agent Allen testified that he confirmed telephonically that afternoon that there was a conviction, but that the judgment was not yet in the A-file. Agent Allen clarified that a copy of the judgment would ordinarily not be placed in the A-file until Ortuño was deported. On re-direct examination, Agent Allen explained that earlier that afternoon, he confirmed with the San Diego Border Patrol Prosecution Unit that judgment of conviction was entered on August 29, 2003.
Ortuño moved to dismiss the Petition to Revoke on the bases that: 1) the government failed to present sufficient evidence that Ortuño violated the conditions of his supervised release absent proof of a conviction; and 2) Ortuño was never provided a written copy of the supervised release conditions. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) finding that Ortuño violated the conditions of his supervised release and was given actual notice of the condition that he not re-enter the country illegally. The district court adopted the R & R, revoked Ortu-ño’s supervised release, and sentenced him to a twenty-four month term of imprisonment.
On appeal, Ortuño renews his argument that his supervised release should not have been revoked because: 1) the government did not produce sufficient evidence that he violated Standard Condition One; and 2) he did not receive the conditions of supervised release in writing. In addition, he contends for the first time that, under United States v. Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d 901 (9th Cir.2004), the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release because the warrant pursuant to which he was arrested was not “supported by Oath or affirmation” as required by the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause.
II
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“The district court’s decision to revoke a term of supervised release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). Whether a defendant received due process at a proceeding to revoke supervised release is reviewed de novo. United States v. Havier, 155 F.3d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1998). ‘We review the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction de novo.” United States v. Powell, 24 F.3d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1994) (citation omitted).
III
DISCUSSION
A. The district court had jurisdiction to revoke Ortuño’s supervised release.
We address Ortuño’s jurisdictional argument first. See Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 995 n. 12 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (stating that “we are required to resolve [jurisdictional] questions first”), cert. dismissed, 540 U.S. 1098, 124 S.Ct. 980, 157 L.Ed.2d 810 (2004).
It is undisputed that the warrant which precipitated Ortuño’s arrest was not “supported by Oath or affirmation.” The question is whether this deficiency divested the district court of jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release. Although Or-tuño did not raise this issue in the district *410court ('Vargas-Amaya had not yet been decided), “we review questions of jurisdiction even if raised for the first time on appeal.” Powell, 24 F.3d at 30.
In Vargas-Amaya, we interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), which provides:
The power of the court to revoke a term of supervised release for violation of a condition of supervised release, and to order the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment ..., extends beyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation.
We held that “a district court’s jurisdiction to revoke supervised release can be extended beyond the term of supervision under § 3583(i), based upon a warrant issued during the term of supervision, only if the warrant was issued ‘upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,’ as required by the Fourth Amendment.” Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d at 907.
Here, unlike in Vargas-Amaya, the district court’s jurisdiction was not premised upon section 3583(i) because Ortuño’s supervised release was revoked before expiration of his supervised release term. See United States v. Schmidt, 99 F.3d 315, 318 (9th Cir.1996) (“[T]he conditions of section 3583(i) apply only when the revocation of supervised release occurs after the term of supervised release has expired.”), overruling on other grounds recognized in United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). Since this case does not involve section 3583®, Vargas-Amaya’s interpretation of that provision is irrelevant.
In Schmidt, we explained that a district court has jurisdiction to revoke a supervised release term before expiration of that term “even if no warrant or summons was issued in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3583®.” Id. at 319. The structure of the supervised release statute buttresses the conclusion we reached in Schmidt. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) provides that the court may, after considering certain factors, “revoke a term of supervised release ... if the court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to revocation of ... supervised release, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” The section 3583(e)(3) authority to revoke supervised release, unlike that in section 3583®, is not conditioned upon the issuance of a warrant. This indicates that Congress intended to make the issuance of a valid warrant a jurisdictional prerequisite only in cases governed by section 3583®, where revocation occurs after the conclusion of the supervised release term. Where revocation occurs before expiration of the term, section 3583(e)(3) governs and the district court will have jurisdiction to revoke supervised release in the absence of a warrant or even if a warrant is defective.
We acknowledge that certain language in a Vargas-Amaya footnote could be read to suggest that the requirements of the Warrant Clause apply even when an arrest occurs during the term of supervised release. See Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d at 905 n. 2. However, given our holding in Schmidt and the structure of the supervised release statute, we do not read this language to establish the proposition that noncompliance with the Warrant Clause creates a jurisdictional defect where revocation occurs before expiration of the supervised release term. Therefore, that Ortuño was arrested pursuant to a warrant which was not supported by oath or affirmation did not deprive the district *411court of jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release.
With the jurisdiction issue settled, we address the merits of Ortuño’s challenges to the revocation of his supervised release.
B. Ortuño had imputed knowledge of the standard release condition that he not commit a crime.
Ortuño asserts that because he was never provided with a written statement of the conditions of his supervised release as required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3588(f) and 3603(1), the revocation cannot stand. Initially, the parties and the court focused our attention on whether Ortuño was given actual notice of the supervised release condition. See United States v. Ortega-Brito, 311 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2002) (examining whether the supervisee received actual notice of the supervised release conditions). Following publication of the panel’s now-withdrawn opinion vacating the revocation on the basis that Ortuño did not receive actual notice of the standard condition that he commit no further crimes, see United States v. Ortuño-Higareda, 421 F.3d 917, 923-25 (9th Cir.2005), the government filed a Petition for Rehearing. In its petition, the government — for the first time — called the panel’s attention to a line of authority imputing knowledge to super-visees of the requirements to refrain from future criminal conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Dane, 570 F.2d 840 (9th Cir.1977), where we held that:
Courts have sustained the revocation of probation ... where the defendant was not aware of the conditions. In such a case, knoiuledge 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.
Id. at 843-44 (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir.1987) (explaining that “[a] court ... may impute knowledge [of a probation condition] when the violation is a criminal act”) (citation omitted); United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 790 (9th Cir.1991) (noting that “a court may impute notice and knowledge of conditions when their violation entails a criminal act. [The defendant] is thus presumed to have notice at least that his [criminal] activities violated probation.”) (citation omitted).4
Ordinarily, we would not consider contentions that went unmentioned during a full round of briefing and oral argument. See Varney v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 859 F.2d 1396, 1397 (9th Cir.1988). However, we are now cognizant that our withdrawn panel opinion was in direct conflict with prior precedent. Compare Ortuño-Higareda, 421 F.3d at 923-24 (requiring actual notice of the standard condition that the releasee refrain from committing a crime), with Simmons, 812 F.2d at 565 (“[W]hen ... the proscribed acts are not criminal, due process requires that the probationer receive actual notice.”) (emphasis added). To avoid an intracircuit conflict, and after considering the post-argument filings of the parties, we elect to consider the government’s argument in this unique circumstance. See Escobar Ruiz v. INS, 813 F.2d 283, 286 (9th Cir.1987) (allowing the government to make a new argument when to do otherwise would “allow[ ] an improper [statutory] interpretation ... to stand as the controlling precedent [and][ ] constitute a disservice to all parties concerned.).”
Standard Condition 1 provided:
*412You shall not commit another federal, state or local crime during the term of supervision.
Standard Condition 1 falls squarely within our precedent that imputes “an understanding that violation of the law will lead to the revocation of probation.” Dane, 570 F.2d at 844. Our precedent forecloses any argument that Ortuño could not be held accountable for committing the crime of illegal re-entry and/or being found in the United States after deported, regardless of whether he received actual notice of those proscriptions. Accordingly, revocation of Ortuño’s supervised release for violating Standard Condition 1 was proper.
C. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that Ortuño violated the conditions of his supervised release.
Ortuño contends that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish that he was convicted of a federal crime because the only evidence of his conviction was the hearsay testimony of Agent Allen. Ortuño postulates that absent proof of a conviction, insufficient evidence exists to support revocation of his supervised release. Ortuño also argues that the district court’s reliance on the hearsay testimony of Agent Allen violated his due process rights.
A court may revoke a term of supervised release “if the court ... finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release ...” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The first standard condition of Ortuño’s supervised release was that he “not commit another federal, state or local crime during the term of supervision.” In addition, Ortuño was subject to a special condition that “[i]f deported, [he] shall not reenter the United States without legal authorization.” There was no condition imposed that Ortuño not be convicted of another crime.
The R & R, which the district court adopted, seemed to rely, at least in part, on Agent Allen’s hearsay testimony that he telephonically confirmed Ortuño’s conviction. However, the R & R was also grounded on the documents contained in Ortuño’s A-file.5 Id. Thus,' although the R & R stated that “the certified copy of the judgment is the preferable evidence,” it nonetheless found that “the Government met its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ortuño committed a federal criminal offense while on supervised release.” Id. (emphasis added).
Of course, a certified conviction would be the best evidence that Ortuño committed the crime of re-entry without authorization.6 However, other documents in Ortuño’s A-file, presented through the testimony of Agent Allen, established by a preponderance of the evidence that Or-tuño illegally re-entered the United States after being deported and thus committed a federal crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). *413These documents consisted of the arrest report for Ortuño’s illegal re-entry, the criminal complaint filed for that offense, and the results of a fingerprint examination indicating that Ortuño was the same person who was sentenced in 2000 and deported in 2001. Documents in an A-file are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See United States v. Hernandez-Herrera, 273 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2001). Thus, no due process violation occurred, and the district court acted within its discretion when it revoked Ortuño’s supervised release.
IV
CONCLUSION
The district court had jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings in this case. Notice was imputed to Ortuño that if he reentered or was found in the United States after deportation, he would be in violation of his supervised release condition that he refrain from committing further crimes. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding that Ortuño violated the conditions of his supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
. "The INS is now called the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.” United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1140 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004).
. The A-file is the file kept for an alien, containing arrest reports, conviction documents, warrants of deportation, immigration judge orders, photographs, and fingerprints.
. Ortuño does not dispute that these documents were admitted into evidence.
. The fact that these cases address probation rather than supervised release does not affect our analysis. See United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 985 n. 4 (9th Cir.2005).
. Ortuño does not assert that the R & R, as adopted by the district court, failed to adequately identify the basis on which the court resolved the dispute as to the sufficiency of the evidence; thus, our decision in United States v. Sesma-Hernandez is inapposite. 253 F.3d 403, 405-06 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (holding that due process requires that when a defendant disputes the evidence relied upon by the government to revoke a term of supervised release, “the district court must make sufficient findings on the record to identify the violation and the evidence relied upon to establish it.”).
. It is also true that the government could have easily confirmed that Ortuño was convicted. However, the government did not seek to rely on Ortuño’s conviction; rather, it was Ortuño who elicited the hearsay testimony about the conviction and then complained that there was no record of it.