In re Ellis, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Feb. 04, 2004) (district court lacks sua sponte authority to vacate a previously entered and accepted guilty plea; upon rejecting the plea agreement, the only course available for the district court under FRCP rule 11 is to advise the defendant of his rights, including the right to withdraw the guilty plea).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0170724p.pdf

Hanson v. Mahoney, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2006) (federal magistrate judges who adjudicate habeas petitions by consent of the parties have authority to issue certificates of appealability).

United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug., 12, 2005) (the burden to that an error was harmless is on the government; reversal is required where harmlessness is not shown by a preponderance of the evidence). See United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1214-16 (9th Cir. 2002). Here government advanced no argument that the evidentiary error was harmless. "Usually when the government fails to argue harmlessness, we deem the issue waived and do not consider the harmlessness of any errors we find. See, e.g., United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir.

Gebremaria v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __ (8th Cir. Aug. 2, 2004) (IIRAIRA 309(c)(4)(B) bars consideration of material not included in the record from the immigration court proceeding, including proof of noncitizens medical condition where noncitizen was aware of the condition during the initial proceedings).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/032492p.pdf

United States v. Hamdi, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 3366948 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2005) (completion of sentence and deportation of defendant do not render his appeal from sentence moot).

Murdoch v. Castro, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. April 5, 2004) (attorney-client privilege must yield to constitutional right of confrontation, and defendant must be allowed to breach informants privilege where necessary to ensure fair trial).

United States v. Marks, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2004) (conviction counts as predicate conviction in federal prosecution for violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), although conviction found was unconstitutional based on ineffective assistance of counsel).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0330464p.pdf

Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. Feb. 27, 2003) (stating in dicta that federal and state convictions remain valid for immigration purposes even if vacated on legal grounds).

United States v. Padilla, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Nov. 12, 2004) (conviction for felon in possession of firearm, under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) was not invalidated by post-conviction nunc pro tunc state court invalidation of underlying felony conviction; conviction remains valid since defendant was a felon at the time of the federal conviction).

United States v. Discipio, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL 912597 (5th Cir. April 29, 2004) (following Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2002), state conviction remains for immigration purposes, even though convicting court granted motion for new trial based upon substantive flaws in underlying proceeding)      In United States v. Discipio, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL 912597 (5th Cir. April 29, 2004), the first published Fifth Circuit court decision to cite Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir.