Dakane v. U.S. Attorney General, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 289462 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2005) (noncitizen must show prejudice for attorneys failure to file appeal as promised; presumption of prejudice may be rebutted).

United States v. Ruiz-Alonso, 397 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2005) (district courts decision at sentencing to depart downward in illegal reentry case is vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0350125p.pdf

Romero v. INS, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 299698 (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2005) (petition for review denied over claim that due process rights were violated when counsel failed to inform the immigration court that the noncitizen was married to a United States citizen and eligible to adjust status).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/024076p.pdf

United States v. Labastida-Segura, 396 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2005) (defendants sentence for unlawful reentry remanded to determine whether district courts mandatory use of United States Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States v. Booker was harmless error).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/041311.html

At some point, the endless discussion of Booker issues may bore Flash readers, but the Ninth Circuits decision last week in Ameline definitely merits notice.

Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Attorney General (Feb. 20, 3003) http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/INSDetention.htm      The Immigration and Nationality Act by its terms grants the Attorney General a full 90 days to effect an alien's removal after the alien is ordered removed under section 241(a) of the Act, and it imposes no duty on the Attorney General to act as quickly as possible, or with any particular degree of dispatch, within the 90-day period.

Lema v. INS 341 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. September 2, 2003) (removable noncitizen who refuses to cooperate fully in securing travel documents from a foreign government cannot meet the burden of showing no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future, and such noncitizens continued detention is authorized).
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0235901p.pdf

Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. November 26, 2003) (affirming district court grant of habeas relief in light of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)).

Please see our E-Newsletter of May 22, 2003 for a discussion on the topic.

Hmaidan v. Ashcroft, F.Supp.2d 832 (N.D.Ill. April 28, 2003) (Attorney General authorization to set conditions of release under 6 U.S.C. 1231(a)(3) includes authorization to set bond as a condition of release from INS custody).