United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 657 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (reversing an order of the district court setting aside a conviction and ordering a new trial to cure a structural defect, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 33 and 26.3, where the court's order constituted a colorable double jeopardy violation).

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (Utah conviction of second-degree burglary of a dwelling, under Utah Code Ann. 76"6"202(2), did not categorically constitute a burglary of a dwelling crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) & n.1(B)(iii), because Utah law defined dwelling more broadly than it is defined in the federal Guidelines definition of burglary of a dwelling); following United States v.

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (in using the modified categorical analysis to determine whether a state conviction falls within a generic federal definition of a conviction, the court cannot consider an uncontroverted presentence report); United States v. Felix, 561 F.3d 1036, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009) (it is inappropriate to use a presentence report to determine the type or character of the conviction.) (emphasis in original); United States v. Corona"Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1212 (9th Cir.

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (in using the modified categorical analysis to determine whether a state conviction falls within a generic federal definition of a conviction, the court cannot consider a post-conviction, independent examination of the facts forming the basis of a prior conviction; Taylor requires the avoidance of subsequent evidentiary enquiries into the factual basis for the earlier conviction.).

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (the Grisel rule applies retroactively to this case, and the Supreme Courts decision in Teague does not preclude this, since (1) Teague applies only to new constitutional rules of criminal procedure.; (2) Teague by its terms applies only to procedural rules); see United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 851 n.5 (9th Cir.

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2011) (an alien in removal proceedings can withdraw his former attorney's admission of the Government's factual allegations when the propriety of the admission has been severely undercut by subsequent legal developments that may, in fact, mean that the admission was false).

Csar Cuauhtmoc Garca Hernndez, Major Issues the Courts Have Been Dealing with Since Padilla v. Kentucky, 2011 Emerging Issues 5882 (Sept. 8, 2011).

People v. Gari, 199 Cal.App.4th 510 (4th Dist. Sept.

People v. Gari, 199 Cal.App.4th 510 (4th Dist. Sept. 12, 2011) (noncitizen defendants assertions that he pleaded guilty to offenses occurring before he obtained naturalized United States citizenship, without knowing the legal effect of the plea on his citizenship status, were insufficient to support coram nobis relief or any similar form of nonstatutory relief based on equity and fairness).

People v. Gari, 199 Cal.App.4th 510 (4th Dist. Sept. 12, 2011) (whether and when defendant committed charged offenses were facts of which defendant had knowledge when he pleaded guilty, and thus a writ of error coram nobis was not available to defendant).