Peters v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2004) (Fifth Circuit rejected reasoning of Coronado-Durazo, holding a conviction of solicitation to transport marijuana for sale constituted a conviction of an offense relating to a controlled substance)  

Elkins v. Comfort, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 2004) (affirming denial of adjustment of status on account of Korean conviction of possession of marijuana, with two-year probation term, since Federal First Offender Act provided for only one-year probation term, so conviction still existed to trigger ground of inadmissibility).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/031184.html

The BIA has held in two recent non-precedent decisions that actual expungement of a first-offense conviction of possession of a controlled substances is not required, before removal proceedings will be terminated, because Lujan and Manrique suggest that a conviction does not constitute a deportable controlled substances conviction if the respondent would have been eligible for treatment under the Federal First Offender Act if prosecuted in federal court, even if a state expungement has not yet actually been obtained and the defendant remains on probation.

United States v. Kovac, 367 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. May 12, 2004) (hearsay statement attributed to defendant in state presentence report that describes conduct underlying prior criminal conviction is insufficient to designate defendant a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0310386p.pdf

     "[I]f a defendant enters a guilty plea, the sentencing court may consider the charging documents in conjunction with the plea agreement, the transcript of a plea proceeding, or the judgment to determine whether the defendant pled guilty to the elements of the generic crime. Charging papers alone are never sufficient." United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002).      "It cannot be disputed that Count Ones language sets out the generic elements of burglary .

Abreu-Reyes v. INS, 292 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2002), earlier mandate withdrawn, petition for rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, petition for review granted, 350 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2003) ("for the reasons stated in Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) and Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) . . . [t]he immigration judge was not authorized to use the pre-sentence report in determining whether petitioner was an aggravated felon for purposes of removal.")

Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. October 10, 2003) (BIA improperly relied upon presentence report in finding 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).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0270317p.pdf

Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. September 11, 2003) (on denial of rehearing) ("In several cases cited by Ashcroft we have noted the documents that the Board of Immigration Appeals is free to consider in determining whether a conviction under a divisible statute constitutes an aggravated felony. The documents include the state charging document, a signed plea agreement, jury instructions, guilty pleas, transcripts of a plea proceeding and the judgment. Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir. 2003).

Dickson v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. September 9, 2003) (petition for review granted, vacating the BIA decision ordering petitioner removed from the United States for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, because the Immigration Judge and the BIA improperly relied upon the narrative statement of facts contained in petitioner's pre-sentence report in concluding that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony).

United States v. Pimental-Flores, 339 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. August 11, 2003) (presentence report that failed to identify the exact statute of conviction is legally insufficient to establish that a state conviction fell within the crime of violence definition of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 (2001) for purposes of sustaining a 16-level sentence enhancement for illegal reentry).