Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345
F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2003) (BIA improperly relied
upon presentence report in finding Arizona conviction for
conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of Ariz.
Rev. Stat. § 13-1003, 12-2317(A)(1), (C) was a drug trafficking
crime where presentence report indicated respondent was a
drug dealer and the offense involved 15 pounds of marijuana).

United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th
Cir. June 6, 2003) (transportation of controlled substances
on a nonstop flight within the United States does not constitute
importation under 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), even though the flight
traveled through international airspace).

United States v. Shumate, 329 F.3d 1026,
1030-1031 (9th Cir. May 20, 2003) (Oregon: the omission of
solicitation from the offenses listed in the application note
as included in U.S.S.G.

Kellman v. District Director, U.S. INS,
750 F.Supp. 625 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1990) (New York conviction
for distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of
New York Penal Law § 220.39, constituted aggravated felony
under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for
removal purposes).

Leader v. Blackman, 744 F.Supp. 500
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 1990) (New York conviction for attempted
criminal sale of controlled substances in the third degree,
in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39, constitutes an "aggravated
felony," under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B),
and triggers mandatory detention).

Garcia v. Attorney General,
___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2529471 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2006) (Pennsylvania
conviction of two counts of manufacturing, delivering, or
possessing a controlled substance with the intent to deliver,
under 35 Pa. Stat. Ann.

United States v. Palacios-Quinonez,
431 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2005) (California conviction
of "possession" of a controlled substance for purposes
of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), includes constructive possession;
purchase for sale of a controlled substance, in violation
of California Penal Code § 11351 is an aggravated felony drug
trafficking offense for sentencing purposes).

United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268 (5th
Cir. May 19, 2005) (California conviction for "[t]ransport/sell
methamphetamine" under Cal. Health & Safety Code
§ 11379(a) did not constitute conviction of drug trafficking
with sentence imposed in excess of 13 months for purposes
of triggering a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G.

Peters v. Ashcroft,
383 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2004) (Arizona conviction
of felony solicitation to transport marijuana for sale, in
violation of A.R.S. § 13-1002, subd. B, par. 2, 13-3405,
subd. B, par. 11, is a controlled substance conviction for
deportation purposes), following Matter of Beltran, 20 I.
& N. Dec. 521 (BIA May 28, 1992).

United States v. Rodriguez-Duberney,
326 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2003) (since courts consideration
of whether a prior conviction constitutes a drug trafficking
offense under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) does not require
a determination whether the offense "by its nature"
fits a certain definition, contrary to the question whether
a conviction constitutes a "crime of violence" under
18 U.S.C.