Crosby v. Schwartz, 678 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. May 4, 2012) (affirming denial of habeas corpus, where state court holdings were neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, in that the defendants jury trial waiver was express and intelligent; there is no clearly established U.S. Supreme Court law that holds that the Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial after a valid waiver of that right).

Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012, amended May 3, 2012) (collateral estoppel applies in immigration proceedings; BIAs prior determination that alien had demonstrated he would be tortured upon his return to Nigeria was binding on the government in subsequent proceedings; BIA abused its discretion by denying motion to reopen on ground that alien knew of purported new evidence at time of the original ruling, where it was uncontroverted that alien lacked access to that evidence at that time, and the evidence was significant, dramatic, and compelling).

United States v. Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. May 11, 2012) (the district court did not err by allowing a law enforcement agent to testify regarding statements defendant made through an interpreter during a post-arrest interview, even though he had no opportunity to confront the interpreter, since the defendant did not object to the agents testimony on this basis, and there was no plain error because on the facts of this case, the interpreter was not a witness, but a mere language conduit for defendants statements); following United States v. Nazemian, 948 F.3d 522, 525-26, 528 (9th Cir.

Rodgers v. Marshall, 678 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. May 17, 2012) (trial court violated defendants Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it denied his timely request for appointment of counsel to represent him on a new trial motion, based on the erroneous notion that once waived, the right to counsel cannot be reasserted; and the defendant was not required to prove prejudice, and a harmless error analysis was not required).

United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. May 30, 2012) (California conviction for violation of Health & Safety Code 11351, possession of a controlled substance for sale, is not categorically a drug trafficking offense for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, because it is possible to be convicted under this statute for possession of a substances not listed on the federal controlled substances schedule; charging language made clear that offense involved a controlled substance, applying the modified categorical analysis), agreeing with United States v.

United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. May 30, 2012) (where the charging document specifies the drug as one listed in the CSA, and the abstract or minute order shows the defendant pleaded to that Count, Snellenberger applies and the defendant may be found to have pleaded to a controlled substances offense).

United States v. Gomez-Hernandez, 680 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. May 31, 2012) (Arizona attempted aggravated assault conviction, for attempting to "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" cause a physical injury with a deadly weapon is categorically a crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes because one cannot "attempt" to commit a reckless act, and therefore the conviction must have involved intent, rather than recklessness).

Hajro v. USCIS, 832 F.Supp.2d 1095 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 13, 2011, final Judgment May 5, 2012) (finding USCIS in violation of FOIA for causing excessive delays and issuing injunction to force USCIS to promptly reply to FOIA request).

United States v. Castro-Inzunza, Slip Copy, 2012 WL 1952652 (D. Or. May 30, 2012) (defendant charged with illegal re-entry is not eligible for pre-trial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142, where the defendant is subject to reinstatement of removal and thus would be deported from the United States before trial if released from criminal custody).

United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. May 7, 2012) (affirming federal conviction of being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2), rejecting claim that the statute is unconstitutional as an abridgment of the right to bear arms as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).