21 USC 841(b)(4) states: Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of Title 18.

United States v. Palacios-Quinonez, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 3160279 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2005) ("possession" of a controlled substance for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (illegal reentry sentence enhancement for aggravated felony drug trafficking), 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).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0510323cr0p.pdf

United States v. Herrera-Roldan, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1635366 (10th Cir. July 13, 2005) (Texas conviction for possession of more than 50, but no more than 2000, pounds of marijuana constituted an aggravated felony "drug trafficking crime," as defined by 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and thus merited an 8-level adjustment under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1); however, the offense of simple possession [no matter what the amount] is not a "drug trafficking offense" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) [which would merit a 12-level adjustment], as there is no trafficking element to the offense).

Saleres v. INS, 2001 WL 1526405 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2001)(unpublished decision holding a conviction for transportation of marijuana under California Health & Safety Code § 11360 is not an aggravated felony because it can be committed for personal use).

Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377 (3rd Cir. Nov. 26, 2003) (New Jersey conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute could not be determined to be aggravated felony since court could not determine from state court judgment whether crime could be categorized as a felony under state law involving "drug trafficking").
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2003,1204-Wilson.pdf

United States v. Madera-Madera, 333 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. June 10, 2003)(Georgia conviction of possession of 28 grams or more of methamphetamines, in violation of O.C.G.A. § with a sentence of 10 years confinement, constituted a "drug trafficking offense" under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), for purposes of a 16-level increase in illegal reentry sentence, since Georgia's inference of an intent to distribute from possession of an elevated amount of methamphetamines is reasonable).

United States v. Madera-Madera, 333 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. June 10, 2003)(Georgia conviction of possession of 28 grams or more of methamphetamines, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31(e), constituted a "drug trafficking offense" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), for purposes of a 16-level increase in sentence for illegal reentry, since Georgia's inference of intent to distribute from possession of an elevated amount of drugs is permissible).

Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Weber, Case No. 03-RB-0678 (MJW) (D. Colo. May 22, 2003)(unpublished)(petition for writ of habeas corpus granted holding that a possession conviction could not be considered an aggravated felony, under Yanez, where the defendant relied upon existing law that it was not an aggravated felony at the time of the plea). Petitioner was represented by Jim Salvator of Lafayette, Colorado.

328 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. May 5, 2003) (federal conviction of offense of manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), constituted an illicit-trafficking "aggravated felony" under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), was determined by the label in the judgment despite references to accessory after the fact under 18 U.S.C. § 3, for purposes of determining whether Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review removal order).

Olivera-Garcia v. INS, 328 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. May 5, 2003) (federal conviction of offense of manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), constituted an illicit-trafficking "aggravated felony" under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) and a violation of "law relating to a controlled substance," for purposes of determining whether Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review removal order).