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.

State of Ohio v. Creary, __ F.Supp.3d __ (Oh. App. Feb. 26, 2004) (counsel gave affirmative misadvise by advising client to plea guilty on basis that going to trial would result in deportation; court found deportation for aggravated felons to be nearly certain; while court gives considerable deference to lawyer's judgment when advising client about likelihood of outcomes within a range of possibilities, there is no justification for misinforming a client about the state of unambiguous law).

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, __ U.S. __, 2004 WL 1432135 (June 6, 2004) (habeas is  limited to the "immediate custodian"; proper respondent to habeas is "the person" with ability to produce prisioners body before court, i.e. the warden of facility where prisoner is being held, not Attorney General or other remote supervisory official).

Broomes v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. Feb. 17, 2004) (petitioner cannot collaterally attack an expired state court conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 or 2254); accord, Drakes v. INS, 330 F.3d 600, 605-606 (3d Cir., cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 541 (2003); Contreras v. Schiltgen, 151 F.3d 906, 907-908 (9th Cir. 1998); Neyor v. INS, 155 F.Supp.2d 127, 138-139 (D.N.J. 2001).
http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/026419.html

Kamagate v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2004) (removal of respondent did not render moot a federal habeas action under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging validity of removal order on basis of aggravated felony, since he can show some 'collateral consequence' ...

The fact that a noncitizen has been deported does not moot his habeas petition. His future ineligibility for readmission to the United States preserves his Article III standing. See Shittu v. Elwood, 204 F. Supp. 2d 876, 878 (E.D. Pa. 2002); Johnson v. Department of Justice, (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d), 2004 WL 1240695 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 2004).

Ann Benson, Post-Conviction Relief For Immigrants In Washington State (Washington Defender Associations Immigration Project, 2004).

Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct.

If a jail or prison lacks a law library, that fact may result in equitable tolling of the statute of limitations within which post-conviction relief requests must be filed. Cf. Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1985) (right to law library access for self-represented defendant).