Acosta v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2008) (court of appeal lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear petition for review because petitioner's conviction was a crime "related to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); and (2)).

Burgess v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___,(Apr. 16, 2008) ("Notably, [21 U.S.C.] 802(44) includes foreign offenses punishable by more than one year, while 802(13) includes only federal and state offenses. Incorporation of 802(13) into 841(b)(1)(A) would exclude enhancement based on a foreign offense, notwithstanding the express inclusion of foreign offenses in 802(44)'s definition of "felony drug offense." Furthermore, some States and many foreign jurisdictions do not label offenses as felonies or misdemeanors.").

Piedrahita v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 142 (1st Cir. Apr. 28, 2008) (petition for review denied where petitioner failed to raise relevant issues in his opening brief, and addressed a dispositive issue in an incoherent and perfunctory manner).

Ortiz-Magana v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2008) (noncitizen failed to establish a reasonable probability that the state would apply the statute of conviction outside the definition of the ground of deportation in the aiding and abetting an assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated felony crime of violence context, since he presented no evidence that California has applied aiding and abetting assault outside the generic definition of a crime of violence).

United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 523 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. Apr.

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800, ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) (court of appeals enforces record of conviction limitation, of categorical analysis, and holds it improper to go beyond record of conviction where the statute defining the offense of conviction does not contain disjunctive elements or divisible subsections creating multiple offenses: "The purpose of the categorical approach is to avoid "the practical difficulties and fairness problems that would arise if courts were permitted to consider the facts behind prior convictions ....

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800, ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) ("The purpose of the categorical approach is to avoid "the practical difficulties and fairness problems that would arise if courts were permitted to consider the facts behind prior convictions .... [which] would potentially require federal courts to relitigate a defendant's prior conviction in any case where the government alleged that the defendant's actual conduct fit the definition of a predicate offense."), quoting Larin-Ullo v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 456, 463 (5th Cir.2006), citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S.

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800, ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) ("Moreover, unlike the federal aiding and abetting statute involved in James, the federal misprision of a felony statute defines a separate offense, distinct from the underlying felony. See James, 464 F.3d at 510 n. 24 (citing Londono-Gomez v. INS, 699 F.2d 475, 476 (9th Cir.1983)). Thus, the fact that Patel was specifically indicted for misprision of a bank fraud is irrelevant to our inquiry of whether the statutory definition of the offense itself necessarily entails fraud or deceit.").

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800, ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) (the elements of the federal offense of misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, were described as "(1) knowledge that a felony was committed; (2) failure to notify the authorities of the felony; and (3) an affirmative step to conceal the felony. See United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 508 (5th Cir.1992). "[U]nder the misprision statute, the defendant must commit an affirmative act to prevent discovery of the earlier felony." Id. "Mere failure to make known does not suffice." Id. at 508-09 (citation omitted).

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) (Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure did not require district court to rule on defendant's objections to information contained in his PSR).