Burgess v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___,(Apr. 16, 2008) ("Notably, [21 U.S.C.] 802(44) includes foreign offenses punishable by more than one year, while 802(13) includes only federal and state offenses. Incorporation of 802(13) into 841(b)(1)(A) would exclude enhancement based on a foreign offense, notwithstanding the express inclusion of foreign offenses in 802(44)'s definition of "felony drug offense." Furthermore, some States and many foreign jurisdictions do not label offenses as felonies or misdemeanors.").

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800, ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) ("The purpose of the categorical approach is to avoid "the practical difficulties and fairness problems that would arise if courts were permitted to consider the facts behind prior convictions .... [which] would potentially require federal courts to relitigate a defendant's prior conviction in any case where the government alleged that the defendant's actual conduct fit the definition of a predicate offense."), quoting Larin-Ullo v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 456, 463 (5th Cir.2006), citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S.

Nijhawan v. Attorney General, 523 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. May 2, 2008) ("In Dulal-Whiteway, the Second Circuit noted that the words of the INA provision render deportable one who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, not one who has committed an aggravated felony. Id. at 132. We do not disagree with this and, much like the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Conteh, we endorse careful consideration of the record to determine whether it is sufficiently clear that the loss connected to the crime of conviction exceeded $10,000.

Atunnise v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. Apr. 30, 2008) (case remanded to allow immigration judge to reconsider petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(d)(3) where flaw in form DS-156 did not allow petitioner to correctly answer a question regarding her immigration status or the consular office to realize that she needed to apply for a waiver, and IJ failed to alert her to all the avenues of relief or afford her an opportunity to apply).

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800, ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) ("Moreover, unlike the federal aiding and abetting statute involved in James, the federal misprision of a felony statute defines a separate offense, distinct from the underlying felony. See James, 464 F.3d at 510 n. 24 (citing Londono-Gomez v. INS, 699 F.2d 475, 476 (9th Cir.1983)). Thus, the fact that Patel was specifically indicted for misprision of a bank fraud is irrelevant to our inquiry of whether the statutory definition of the offense itself necessarily entails fraud or deceit.").

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) (Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure did not require district court to rule on defendant's objections to information contained in his PSR).