United States v. Rodriquez, 464 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2006) (Washington convictions for delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Wash. Rev.Code 9A.20.021(1)(c), did not qualify as predicate "serious drug offense" "for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law," under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.

United States v. Rodriquez, 464 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2006) (Washington convictions for delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Wash. Rev.Code 9A.20.021(1)(c), did not qualify as predicate "serious drug offense" "for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law," under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.

Santamaria-Ames v. INS, 104 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1996) (even a serious conviction or set of convictions that that occur outside the statutorily mandated period cannot serve as the sole basis to decline to find good moral character as a matter of discretion).

Matter of Ortega-Cabrera, 23 I. & N. Dec. 793, 797-798 (BIA 2005) (required ten years of good moral character "must include the time during which the respondent is in proceedings, i.e., until the issuance of an administratively final decision on the application.").

Hovey v. Woodward, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2006) (a hearing conducted by the judge into defense attorney's competency to represent the defendant is not a critical stage of the proceedings at which the defendant had a right to be represented by unconflicted counsel and to be present).

Hovey v. Woodward, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. August 11, 2006)(counsel's failure to investigate defendant's mental condition at the time of offense and to adequately prepare expert witness sufficiently undermined confidence in verdict so as to require reversal of sentence, where counsel failed to provide crucial psychiatric records to testifying expert, and failed to give him information regarding an unrelated offense, which made the expert look "ill-prepared and foolish.").

LaMere v. Slaughter, 458 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) (habeas relief properly denied, despite claims under In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), on the grounds that the prosecution failed to introduce sufficient evidence of guilt during case-in-chief, since Winship and Jackson do not apply to a motion for directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the case-in-chief; court on habeas looks at all the evidence presented to determine if it was sufficient).

Joseph v. United States Atty Gen., 465 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. Oct. 2, 2006) (federal conviction of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 924(a)(1)(D) [transporting firearm across state lines] is not an aggravated felony firearms trafficking offense under INA 101(a)(43)(C) for immigration purposes because the statute does not at a minimum require "trafficking" in firearms; the offense may be committed by bringing ones own firearm across state lines).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2006) (fact that noncitizen was not currently eligible to apply for adjustment of status because he did not have a visa immediately available to him did not mean noncitizen was not entitled to apply for adjustment due to visa petition filed on his behalf; fact that visa was not yet current was not sufficient, in itself, to form basis of denial of a continuance to allow noncitizen to apply for adjustment once visa became available).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053965p.pdf

Matter of Deandra-Romo, 23 I. & N. Dec. 597 (BIA 2003) (respondent, convicted of two misdemeanor crimes involving moral turpitude, is not precluded by INA 240A(d)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)(B), from establishing the requisite seven years of continuous residence for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(a)(2), because his first crime, which qualified under the petty offense exception, did not render him inadmissible, and he had accrued the requisite seven years of continuous residence before the second offense was committed).