United States v. Samaniego-Rodriguez,
32 F.3d 242, 243 n.3 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 1994), cert. denied,
514 U.S. 1052 (Apr. 3, 1995) (Illinois conviction of possession
of cocaine with intent to deliver is an aggravated felony,
under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for
purposes of enhancing sentence for illegal re-entry).

United States v. Galvan-Zermeno,
52 F.Supp.2d 922 (C.D.Ill. May 21, 1999) (Illinois felony
conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent
to deliver was an "aggravated felony" under INA
§ 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) 16-level sentence enhancement for
illegal re-entry, since state felony is considered a felony
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).

United States v. Baca-Valenzuela,
118 F.3d 1223 (8th Cir. July 7, 1997) (federal conviction
of aiding and abetting possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2, constituted aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(B),
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), for purposes of enhancing illegal
re-entry sentence under U.S.S.G.

United States v. Briones-Mata,
116 F.3d 308 (8th Cir. May 12, 1997) (Florida felony conviction
for buying marijuana constituted aggravated felony, under
INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for purposes
of enhancing illegal re-entry sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2),
despite the fact the conviction would have been a misdemeanor
under federal law).

United States v. Martinez-Amaya, 67 F.3d
678, 682 (8th Cir. Oct. 10, 1995) (Oregon conviction for delivery
of cocaine constituted aggravated felony, under INA § 101(a)(43)(B),
8 U.S.C.

Salviejo-Fernandez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jul.
31, 2006) (California conviction of maintaining a place to
store drugs for sale, in violation of Health & Safety
Code § 11366, constitutes a drug trafficking aggravated
felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B),
for immigration purposes).

ote: The majority
holds that a violation of California Heath & Safety Code
§ 11366 is a categorical match for 21 U.S.C. § 856
(i.e., has the exact same elements and covers the same range
of offenses), and is thus categorically an aggravated felony
drug offense.

United States v. Morales-Perez, 438 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. Feb.
22, 2006) (California conviction for possession or purchase
of cocaine base for purposes of sale, in violation of California
Health & Safety Code § 11351.5, is not categorically a
drug trafficking offense within the meaning of U.S.S.G.

United States v. Benitez-Perez,
367 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. May 20, 2004) (Nevada conviction for
a violation of N.R.S. § 453.337.1, which provides that "it
is unlawful for a person to possess for the purpose of sale
. . . any controlled substance classified in schedule I or
II," constitutes a drug trafficking offense as defined
by U.S.S.G.

United States
v. Hernandez-Valdovinos, 352 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. Dec. 17,
2003) (Arizona attempted sale conviction, in violation of
A.R.S. § 13-3408, constituted drug trafficking offense for
illegal re-entry sentence enhancement purposes, under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2).