United States v. Torres-Villalobos, 487 F.3d 607, ___, (8th Cir. May 9, 2007) (Minnesota conviction for second-degree manslaughter, in violation of Minn.Stat. 609.205, did not qualify as crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), and is therefore not an "aggravated felony," under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), since it does not have as an essential element the intentional use of force: "Under Minnesota law, a person can commit second-degree manslaughter without using force or risking the intentional use of force. Minn.Stat. 609.205.

United States v. Torres-Villalobos, 487 F.3d 607, ___, (8th Cir. May 9, 2007) (Minnesota conviction for second-degree manslaughter, in violation of Minn.Stat. 609.205, did not qualify as crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and is therefore not an "aggravated felony," under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), since it does not "involve a risk that the perpetrator will intentionally use physical force in the course of committing the offense.

United States v. Torres-Villalobos, 487 F.3d 607, ___ n.4, (8th Cir. May 9, 2007) ("substantial risk" test for crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), is not met by substantial risk of causing physical injury; it requires ignoring "the [substantial] risk that the use of physical force against another might be required in committing a crime."), quoting Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 10 (2004) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Hudson, 414 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 1769 (2006); compare United States v.

Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Texas. Crim. App. 1991) (conjunctive pleading represents an alternative pleading of the differing methods of committing one offense" and allows the jury to return "a general verdict if the evidence is sufficient to support a finding under any of the theories submitted"). See also Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.

Frierson v. Woodford, 463 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel which resulted from counsels failure to review important records).

Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2006) (defense counsel was ineffective in failing to provide defense psychiatrist with records necessary for proper preparation of expert).

Correll v. Ryan, 465 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (defense counsels failure to investigate or present mitigation at penalty phase required reversal of death sentence, despite personal knowledge of several mitigating factors).

Outten v. Kearney, 464 F.3d 401 (3rd Cir. 2006) (trial counsel failed to conduct reasonably competent investigation into the potential mitigation).

Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2006) (counsel failed to conduct any mitigation investigation or present any mitigation evidence the court).

Poindexter v. Mitchell, 454 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2006) (counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation or presentation of defendants social history or available mitigation).