United States v. Ramos-Medina, 682 F.3d 852, 857-858 (9th Cir. June 21, 2012) Where there has been no change in the relevant statues, regulations or governing authority, such as an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, only an en banc panel of our court may overrule or revise the binding precedent established by a published opinion. As we observed in Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc): 'A goal of our circuit's decisions, including panel and en banc decisions, must be to preserve the consistency of circuit law.

United States v. Suarez, 682 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. Jun. 22, 2012) (where a plea never ripens into either a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence, there is no final prior conviction for purposes of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), which increases punishment for recidivism; deferred action under California Penal Code 1000.1, et seq., is not a "final" conviction for this purpose).

Trinidad y Garcia v. Thomas, 683 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2012) (vacating grant of habeas corpus to a noncitizen challenging extradition to the Philippines on grounds that it would violate his rights under the Convention Against Torture and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and remanding for a declaration from the Secretary of State that she has complied with her obligations under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 8 U.S.C. 1231, where the record lacks any sufficient basis in the record to review the district court's order granting petitioner's release).

Planes v. Holder, 686 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2012), denying motion to rehear en banc, Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011).

Gomex v. Superior Court (Felker), 54 Cal.4th 293, 278 P.3d 1168 (Jun.

United States v. Martinez-Zamaripa, 680 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. Jun. 1, 2012) (Oklahoma conviction of indecent proposal to a child, in violation of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, 1123(A)(1) (1995) (any oral ... lewd or indecent proposal to any child under sixteen (16) years of age for the child to have unlawful sexual relations ... with any person.), constituted enumerated offense sexual abuse of a minor, under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. N. 1(B)(iii), for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes).

People v. Nguyen, 80 P.3d 903 (Colo.App., 2003), (a judge has no affirmative obligation to make an advisement regarding the immigration consequences, but once a judge chooses to engage in such an advisement, the advice given must be non-negligent and proper, if the advice lulls the defendant into a false sense of security, the plea should be withdrawn.) Thanks to Jeff D. Joseph.

United States v. Kendrick, 682 F.3d 974, *984 (11th Cir. Jun. 1, 2012) (elements of federal offense knowingly bringing or attempting to bring an alien into the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006) (motion to withdraw a plea on grounds that the trial court did not advise of the possibility of deportation will be held to same two-year time constraint as other postconviction motions to vacate sentences).

In Arizona, attorneys for the Florence Project have heard ICE litigation and ERO officials state that they have a flat policy not to transport an ICE detainee to criminal court for a criminal case even if the state court issues a writ of habeas corpus ad prosecandem. In their experience, however, DHS does seek administrative closure and transports the person to criminal court when they want the client prosecuted. Thanks to Thalassa Kingsnorth, Eloy Staff Attorney
Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.