United States v. Cornelio-Pena, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 218189 (10th Cir. Jan. 30, 2006) (Arizona conviction of solicitation to commit second-degree burglary of a dwelling, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-1002, 1507, is a crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), justifying a 16-level sentence enhancement for illegal reentry, even though the Guidelines do not expressly list solicitation where they "include" "aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting, to commit such offenses." USSG 2L1 .2 cmt. application n. 5, because "include" is non-exhaustive and the examples expressly listed merely illustrative, since the mens rea and actus reus required for solicitation are similar to those required for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and attempt, solicitation is sufficiently similar to the offenses listed in the application note to be encompassed by the note). The Tenth Circuit decision in Cornelio-Pena does not contradict Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322, 1326 (9th Cir. 1997), and Leyva-Licea v. INS, 187 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999), in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that Arizona's solicitation statute is not a law relating to a controlled substance or an aggravated felony under INA 241(a)(2), when the underlying offense solicited is a narcotics violation. "These cases are inapposite, however, because the statutory definition at issue did not contain expansive language similar to the term "include" used in the Guidelines. Leyva-Licea, 187 F.3d at 1150 ("the Controlled Substances Act neither mentions solicitation nor contains any broad catch-all provision that could even arguably be read to cover solicitations"). United States v. Cornelio-Pena, ___ F.3d ___, ___ n.3, 2006 WL 218189 (10th Cir. Jan. 30, 2006).