Sharma v. Ashcroft, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3642 (3d Cir. Feb. 27, 2003), rehearing denied (May 20, 2003) (federal conviction of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, held to be conviction of a crime involving fraud or deceit, and therefore an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i)).

United States v. Gibbens, 25 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1994) (a local, state, or federal government entity may be considered a "victim" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(2) (Victim and Witness Protection Act), and may be awarded restitution under that section when it has suffered harm resulting from a defendant's criminal conduct, as from fraud or embezzlement).

United States v. Duncan, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24292 (D.Conn.

United States v. Rodriguez, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2036247 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2005) (waiver of appeal in immigration court of prior deportation order by defendant was not rendered unknowing and unintelligent based upon immigration judge's incorrect prediction of whether the appellate court would consider underlying drunk driving offense to be an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes, so defendant could not collaterally attack validity of prior deportation order as a defense to illegal reentry prosecution).

United States v. Rodriguez, __ F.3d __ (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2005) (Defendant may not collaterally attack a prior deportation order since he knowingly waived his right to appeal the immigration judge's decision and was not deprived of a right to judicial review).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/044178p.pdf

Richards v. Ashcroft, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 488449 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2005) (Connecticut conviction of possession of a forged document with intent to defraud, deceive, or injure, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-139, is "an offense relating to ... forgery" within the meaning of INA 101(a)(43)(R), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(R), and is therefore an aggravated felony for deportation purposes under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).)

Iysheh v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. Feb. 1, 2006) (federal conviction of "conspiracy to transport, receive, possess, etc. stolen motor vehicles" in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 2313(a), constituted a fraud aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), even though the statute did not have an element of fraud or deceit, because the record of conviction establishes fraud, since noncitizen pleaded guilty to "count one of the superseding indictment," which describes a conspiracy (1) "to defraud a financial institution ... in violation of [18 U.S.C.

California Penal Code 484(a) is a divisible statute covering both fraud and theft offenses, which are nearly mutually exclusive. If a fraud victims loss did not exceed $10,000, but a sentence of a year or more was imposed, the government might charge a fraud offense as an aggravated felony under the theft category. The government should be required to prove that the record clearly establishes the elements of theft, the definition of which includes a taking of property without consent. For a useful discussion of the difference between the elements of fraud and theft, see Soliman v.

United States v. Love, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 3164303 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2005) (court can order that a defendant pay unpaid restitution previously ordered as part of a sentence by another federal court in another federal case).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0430944cr0p.pdf

Zhang v. United States, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2005 WL 3086840, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28404 (E.D. N.Y. Nov. 18, 2005) (introducing a drug that had been misbranded with the intent to defraud and mislead, into interstate commerce, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(a), did not constitute a fraud offense aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)).