130 S.Ct. 1265, 1271, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010))(emphasis in original). We do not need to decide whether Castle-man would apply in this case because Sanford waived his opportunity to argue that his prior convictions were insufficiently violent to qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for purposes of § 922(g)(9). We do not always apply waiver in cases where “intervening case authority might change the result,” Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 444 F.3d 502, 516 (6th Cir.2006) (citation omitted), but we find it equitable to enforce the waiver here because the argument in question had already been raised in several circuits with some success. Sanford had adequate notice that the argument existed and was viable. See United States v. White, 606 F.3d 144 (4th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hays, 526 F.3d 674 (10th
holding on plainerror review an oklahoma statute for assault and battery was equivalent to the enumerated offense holding that virginia domestic assault and battery statute did not qualify holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two holding that unit of prosecution for statute prohibiting assault and battery upon a child was not injuries resulting from proscribed conduct