Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, *641 (No. 11-1695) (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2012) (Supreme Court's decision in Sykes cannot be read to mean that any intentional crime is a violent felony); citing Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267, 2276 (2011); see Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (failing to report to prison when ordered, though it is an intentional felony, is not a violent one, because the risk of violence in efforts to apprehend such no-shows has not been shown to be significant).

Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, *644 (No. 11-1695) (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2012) (armed violence, defined as "committing any felony defined by Illinois Law while armed," did not qualify as a Violent Felony when the underlying felony consisted of simple possession of drugs; while there is evidence of a connection between Congresss attempt to keep firearms away from habitual drug users and its goal of reducing violent crime, United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir. 2010), it has not been shown that the mere possession of a gun by a drug user . . .

United States v. Laguna, 693 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012) (federal conviction of willfully interfering with a final deportation order in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1)(B) and (C), for failing to obtain a Polish passport, affirmed over claims that the district court improperly excluded certain exculpatory evidence and deprived him of his constitutional right to assert a complete defense).

Rivas-Melendrez v. Napolitano, 689 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2012) (deported noncitizen cannot use federal habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. 2241, to challenge executed removal order, since claim was barred by 8 U.S.C. 1252(a), (g), which prevent courts from hearing challenges to the execution of removal orders; additionally, Rivas was not in custody as required under 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)).

Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. Jun. 25, 2012) (district court properly granted incarcerated habeas petitioner relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) where his attorney's abandonment caused him to fail to timely file a notice of appeal).

United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. Jun. 14, 2012) (applying SORNA to defendant based on his state conviction as a juvenile sex offender is not punitive, and therefore not a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution).

Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F3d 1195 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2012) (conducting hearing on alien's request for cancellation of removal by video-conference did not deprive him of due process).

United States v. Marquez-Lobos, 683 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2012) (Arizona conviction of kidnapping, under Arizona Revised Statute 13-1304, is affirmed where it categorically meets the generic definition of "crime of violence" in U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), for purposes of imposing a 16-level sentence enhancement for illegal reentry).

Johnson v. Uribe, 682 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. Jun. 22, 2012) (reversing district courts grant of habeas corpus relief invalidating only the sentence, since ineffective assistance of counsel affected the entire plea negotiation stage of the proceedings in the Superior Court: "Although the district court found that Johnson would still have entered into the Vargas waiver when it was offered, we cannot properly determine whether, with effective assistance of counsel, Johnson would have even reached that point in the proceedings.

United States v. Ramos-Medina, 682 F.3d 852, 857 (9th Cir. Jun. 21, 2012) (California conviction of burglary, under Penal Code 459, constituted a crime of violence under immigration laws, based on United States v. Becker, 919 F.2d 568 (9th Cir.1990), finding Penal Code 459 a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and Lopez"Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.