Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2013 WL 599552 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2013) (Here, the Government argues that, under Duenas"Alvarez, Ramos must show that Georgia would use the Georgia statute to prosecute conduct falling outside the generic definition of theft; if he cannot, the Government argues, the statute cannot be considered divisible.

Cano v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 557171 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2013) (Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence, in violation of Fla. Stat. 843.01 [knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any [officer] ... by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer], is a crime involving moral turpitude, because the offense requires intentionally offering or doing violence to the officers person); following United States v. Romo"Villalobos, 674 F.3d 1246, 1250 n.4 (11th Cir.

The Supreme Court has held that "[T]he well-settled meaning of 'fraud' require[s] a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact" and "materiality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes." Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 23, 25 (1999).

Post-Deportation Human Rights Project
http://www.bc.edu/centers/humanrights/projects/deportation.html

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___n.16, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

FN16. Chaidez makes two back-up arguments in her merits briefs"that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance. Brief for Petitioner 27"39. But Chaidez did not include those issues in her petition for certiorari. Nor, still more critically, did she adequately raise them in the lower courts.

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___n.16, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court held Padilla did not apply to a post-conviction challenge to a federal conviction on grounds that counsel failed to advise the defendant concerning the immigration consequences of a plea in a case already final when Padilla was decided on March 31, 2010. Chaidez does not technically apply to review of state convictions in state court. It held merely that Padilla does not apply to cases already final on March 31, 2010, when it was decided.

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___n.16, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court held Padilla did not apply to a post-conviction challenge to a federal conviction in a case already final when Padilla was decided on March 31, 2010 on grounds that counsel failed to advise the defendant concerning the immigration consequences of a plea. Chaidez involved a claim of failure to advise, rather than affirmative misadvice. Its holding therefore does not pertain in cases involving affirmative misadvice.

Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).

Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach argument that new rules may be reached in post-conviction proceedings raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims because such claims cannot be brought on direct appeal because Chaidez did not raise this argument in the courts below).

Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___, n.1, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013) (A petition for a writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person, like Chaidez, who is no longer in custody and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 or 2241. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507, 510"511, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954).