United States v. Servin-Acosta, 534 F.3d 1362 (10th Cir. Jul. 30, 2008) (California conviction for robbery, in violation of Penal Code 211, is not categorically a generic "robbery" offense, and thus a crime of violence, under USSG 2L1.2(b), for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes; Penal Code 211 is broader than generic robbery in that it includes the use of force in escaping after the taking has occurred), agreeing with United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 528 F.3d 1133, 1140-42 (9th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008) (California conviction of sale of tar heroin, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11352, constituted a drug trafficking aggravated felony for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes; although misdemeanor possessory offense is not an aggravated felony by itself, because the conviction was a misdemeanor, defendants prior drug conviction made the conviction a felony under the hypothetical federal prosecution analysis; court did not address argument that prior must be proven in subsequent conviction), following United States v.

United States v. Zuniga-Soto, 527 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. Jun. 2, 2008) (Texas conviction for assault, in violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01(a)(1), is not categorically a crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes because the statute includes reckless conduct).

Penal Code 1203.1 authorizes the sentencing court to impose a fine or county jail incarceration as a condition of probation. This fine or jail is not considered to be imposed on account of the conviction, however, but instead as a condition of probation. (See League of Women Voters of California v.

Penuliar v. Ashcroft, 528 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. Jun. 10, 2008) (California conviction for violation of California Vehicle Code 10851, unlawful driving of a motor vehicle, is not categorically an aggravated felony "theft" offense for immigration purposes, since that statutes includes accessories after the fact), following United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007)

People v. Wilkinson, 163 Cal.App.4th 1554 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Jun.18, 2008) (California case prosecuting defendant for violation of Penal Code 459, burglary, where defendant entered into bedroom of roommate to download images from roommates computer).

United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2008) (California conviction of robbery, in violation of Penal Code 211, constituted crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2(b), because the elements of the offense meet the generic definition of "extortion," one of the enumerated crimes of violence; California Penal Code 211 is does not categorically meet the generic definition of "robbery."), distinguishing United States v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569, 574 (9th Cir.

United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 528 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. Jun. 12, 2008) (generic definition of extortion: "obtaining something of value from another with is consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats."; extortion includes threats to property and non-immediate danger), citing Scheidler v. Natl Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 409 (2003).

Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I. & N. Dec. 549 (BIA Jun. 25, 2008) (California conviction for violation of California Penal Code 647(b), disorderly conduct, is broader than the prostitution ground of inadmissibility; the phrase "engage in prostitution" for purposes of INA 212(a)(2)(D) means to engage in a pattern or practice of sexual intercourse for financial or other material gain; the phrase does not encompass isolated incidents or sexual contact that falls short of intercourse).

United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983, 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[E]vidence of a mere buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction [unless there is third party involvement, or it was agreed between them that the drugs would be further distributed]."); United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[P]roof that a defendant sold drugs to other individuals does not prove the existence of a conspiracy.");.accord United States v. Douglas, 818 F.2d 1317, 1321 (7th Cir.