Spacek v. Holder, 688 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. Jul. 31, 2012) (North Dakota state conviction of racketeering constituted aggravated felony racketeering conviction, under INA 101(a)(43)(J), 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(43)(J), for immigration purposes, even though the state statute omitted the federal jurisdictional element).

Cook v. Ryan, 688 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. Jul. 27, 2012) (United States Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan, regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, does not apply to this case given defendant's decision to represent himself during his trial and at sentencing).

United States v. Valdes-Vega, 685 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. Jul. 26, 2012) (totality of the circumstances did not provide border patrol agents with reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was smuggling drugs or aliens; an officer may not stop a vehicle solely upon a hunch).

Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2012) (California conviction of resisting an executive officer in violation of Penal
Code 69 is not a categorical crime of violence aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), because it requires only use of de minimis force; the idea that resisting executive officer would inevitably lead to use of violent, physical force was speculative).

Makir-Marwil v. Atty' Gen., 681 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. May 22, 2012) (Matter of Jean standard for "violent or dangerous" crimes may be determined by either a categorical or factual analysis of the offense; IJ and BIA erred in failing to consider individual hardship, including country conditions, in determining that applicant would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship).

Stanley v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 265 (May 22, 2012) (no double jeopardy issues following dismissal of jury where defense counsel participated in discussion which led trial court to believe that counsel had consented to dismissal and retrial; court did not impermissibly assume consent from silence).

People v. Shokur, 205 Cal.App.4th 1398 (May 16, 2012) (court was not required to hear defendants "nonstatutory motion" to set aside his conviction based on counsels alleged ineffectiveness for not explaining that the client would not be allowed to apply for discretionary relief from deportation; the court was without jurisdiction to hear motion to set aside conviction, as case law did not require a nonstatutory motion safety net to provide a remedy when other remedies through which relief might have been obtained were no longer available).

People v. Shokur, 205 Cal.App.4th 1398 (May 16, 2012) (giving of Penal Code 1016.5 advice, which defendant said he understood, precluded him from showing that he did not understand those consequences).

People v. Breslin, 205 Cal.App.4th 1409 (1st Dist. May 16, 2012) (motion to withdraw plea, under Penal Code 1018, on grounds of ineffective counsel for failing to discover prior to plea that the victim had attempted to recant his statement to the police is properly denied, where the other evidence served to support the initially stated facts, rather than the recantation).

People v. Roldan, 205 Cal.App.4th 969, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 (4th Dist. May 1, 2012) (reversing convictions for shooting a man who was later deported before testifying at trial, where the prosecution's efforts to make the deportee available for trial did not constitute due diligence under the law).