Hoang v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1885989 (9th Cir. May 17, 2011) (Washington conviction of misdemeanor rendering criminal assistance in the second degree, to a person who committed a felony, by providing such person transportation, in violation of Wash. Rev. Code 9A.76.080, did not categorically constitute an aggravated felony crime related to obstruction of justice under INA 101(a)(43)(S), 8 U.S.C.

United States v. Nosal, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2011) (18 U.S.C. 1030, punishing unauthorized access of a computer by an employee is violated where the actor obtains information from an employers computer and uses the information for any purpose that violates the employers use of the information).

CD4:19.58;SH:7.66, 8.3;AF:5.40, A.18, B.3

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S.Ct 2577 (Jun. 14, 2010) (a second or subsequent conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance can qualify as a drug trafficking aggravated felony only if the fact of the first conviction is proven or admitted beyond a reasonable doubt in the course of the criminal proceeding regarding the second possession charge).

United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (wire fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C.

Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder, 605 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. May 20, 2010) (Arizona conviction for violation of ARS 14-1405, sexual conduct with a minor under 18, is not categorically an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, since it does not meet the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor"), following Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507 (9th Cir.2009).

United States v. Castagana, 604 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010) (defendant may be convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1), false information and hoaxes, without proof from the government that the defendant intended the recipients of the letters to believe they contained anthrax)

United States v. Castro, 599 F.3d 1050, 1054-1055 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2010) (at least under California law, an act cannot act "willfully" without also acting "knowingly" because California Penal Code 7(1) defines "willfully" as implying a purpose or willingness to commit an act, and one cannot willing commit an act without also knowing one is committing the act).

United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (wire fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C.

Kellerman v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (applying divisible statute analysis to 18 U.S.C. 371, 1001 [conspiracy to commit crime or defraud United States; false or fraudulent statement to government agent], presumably accepting argument that a conviction for these offenses might not necessarily involve moral turpitude).