United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2008) (federal aggravated identity theft statute, which provided that "[w]hoever ... knowingly ... uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall ... be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years," requires proof that defendant knew that means of identification belonged to someone else).

United States v. Rivera, 516 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2008) (sentencing guideline at U.S.S.G. 2L2.1 improperly applied to conviction for transporting illegal aliens from New Jersey to Tennessee for the purpose of obtaining driver's licenses where the documents procured were for purposes of allowing noncitizens to drive, rather than for immigration purposes).

United States v. Murillo, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2008 WL 697160 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 13, 2008) (a "social security card" does not constitute a "means of identification" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1546(b) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), so the court grants defendant's motion to dismiss Count 3); United States v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Tenn. 2003) (a "social security card" is not a "means of identification" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1546(b), even if this creates a "loophole" or appears inconsistent with 18 U.S.C. 1546(a)).

Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008) (evidence of defendant's misconduct in Greece, alleged in support of request by the Greek government for her extradition from the United States, held sufficient to support inference of fraudulent intent, sufficient for conduct to be criminal under United States law and to satisfy "dual criminality" requirement of extradition treaty between United States and Greece).

M. Shein, Cultural Issues in Sentencing, in L. FRIEDMAN RAMIREZ, ED., CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE 625 (2d ed. 2007).

United States v. Yida, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2325143 (9th Cir. Aug.

United States v. Are, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2265118 (7th Cir. Aug. 9, 2007) (five year statute of limitations on prosecution for being found in the United States following removal starts to run on the date the immigration authorities actually discover noncitizens presence, identity, and status or when they arrested him, interrupting his illegal conduct).

United States v. Shum, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2285223 (5th Cir., Aug. 10, 2007) (Federal conviction for conspiracy to conceal, harbor or shield illegal entrants from detection for commercial advantage, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), (a)(1)(A)(iii), and (a)(1)(B)(i), affirmed where defendant "substantially facilitated" noncitizens ability to remain in the United States by hiring them and taking steps to conceal their identifies from detection by the government).

United States v. Hernandez-Lopez, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 2428219 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2007) (defendant cannot be convicted of illegal re-entry following deportation solely upon his own uncorroborated confession).

Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. Jun. 1, 2007) (U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), does not bar prospective plaintiffs, who have not otherwise successfully challenged their underlying convictions, from bringing section 1983 actions that are based upon a violation of extradition law).