The "aiding and abetting" guideline was not deleted, but just renumbered, so aiding and abetting is still listed under the guidelines. The better argument is that the Guidelines and federal sentencing cases do not control for immigration purposes. In United States v. Vidal, after stating that United States v. Corona-Sanchez does not control because it was decided under guidelines which have since been amended, the court stated: "This commentary [U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, cmt. n.4 (2002)] governs Vidal's sentence" and that "Penuliar is distinguishable for the same reason, because it construed 1101(a)(43)(G) alone, without the commentary to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 that includes aiding and abetting for purposes of enhancing the offense level for prior convictions." Thus, Vidal and Martinez-Perez v. Gonzales control in immigration cases. Casares-Gutierrez and Ferreira v. Ashcroft and many other Ninth Circuit immigration cases do not follow the guidelines. Some cases like Ferreira v. Gonzales state that sentencing cases should not be used as authority in the immigration context, but other cases find sentencing cases controlling in the immigration context. The Ninth Circuit immigration-law outline downplays the footnote in Leocal pointing out that in Valencia v. Gonzales, the court cautioned that the different definitions of "crime of violence" in the sentencing guidelines and in 18 U.S.C. 16 could be dispositive in other cases. The sentencing guidelines often go way beyond what the law is and make new law, for example, expanding the statutory crime of violence definitions. Therefore, Stinson does not have to be argued as a first line of defense. The first argument is that U.S.S.G. application notes and guidelines are not controlling. The second argument is that Stinson would apply.      With regard to aiding and abetting, the federal definition and the definition in the majority of states (the generic definition of aiding and abetting) is not the same as the California aiding and abetting natural and probable consequences doctrine. In California, the aider and abettor need not have the same intent as the actual perpetrator if the target offense is different than the offense actually committed.