United States v. Rios-Beltran, 361 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. March 24, 2004) (the statutory maximum, not the sentence range under applicable State sentencing guidelines, determines whether given offense qualifies as felony for federal sentencing purposes; prior Oregon conviction punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year is an "aggravated felony" for federal sentencing purposes).

Morales v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 363432 (9th Cir. February 25, 2004) (unpublished) (IJ erred in finding that single misdemeanor conviction rendered noncitizen statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation where misdemeanor conviction of California Penal Code 273.5, corporal injury, fell within petty offense exception of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)).

Seirra v. Romaine, 347 F.3d 559 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2003) (IIRAIRA 309(c)(1) transitional rule governing detention of persons in immigration proceedings on April 1, 1997, does not apply to noncitizens ordered deported prior to April 1, 1997. However, Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. 678 (2001), does not apply to excludable/inadmissible noncitizens (disagreeing with Xi v. INS, 298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002))).

Martinez-Vazquez v. INS, 346 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2003) (IIRAIRA 309(c)(1) transitional rule governing detention of persons in immigration proceedings on April 1, 1997, does not apply to noncitizens ordered deported prior to that date. Therefore 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6), Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. 678 (2001), and Xi v. INS, 298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002), apply to inadmissible noncitizens ordered excluded prior to that date).

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (June 24, 2004) (clarifying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) rule that any factual sentence enhancement that increases potential punishment over statutory maximum constitutes an element of the offense and must be found true by the jury; relevant "statutory maximum" is not maximum sentence judge may impose after finding additional facts, but maximum judge may impose without any additional findings).

United States v. Tinoso, 327 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003) (Although a district court may order that defendant be delivered to the INS as a condition of supervised release, the court may not order a defendant removed from the United States. Such authority lies with the Executive Branch).

United States v. Jauregui, 314 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2003) (defendant’s waiver of an administrative removal hearing during sentencing for illegal reentry was a waiver of substantial rights and substantially assisted in the administration of justice. Convicting court may use its discretion in granting motion for downward departure despite government refusal to join the motion).

Martin Arms, Comment, Judicial Deportation Under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d): A Partial Solution to Immigration Woes?, 64 U. Chi. L. Rev. 653, 658-59 (1997).

Taylor, Margaret H. and Ronald F. Wright, The sentencing judge as immigration judge, 51 Emory L.J. 1131-1185 (2002).

The government is attempting to expand the use of stipulated removal orders issued by United States District Courts during sentencing proceedings.