Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a conviction for violating Nev.
Rev. Stat. §§ 199.480 and 205.060(1) (conspiracy to commit burglary) could qualify as a conspiracy aggravated felony. The court determined that it could not because Nevada's conspiracy statute does not require a defendant to take an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court rejected the Government's argument that it should look to the common-law definition of conspiracy, which does not require proof of an overt act by the defendant. Instead, the court looked at how the majority of jurisdictions define conspiracy in the modern era. This approach is mandated by the Supreme Court's decision in Taylor v. United States, which states that the generic definition of a crime should be based on the "contemporary usage of the term." Because the majority of jurisdictions do require an overt act, the court found that the generic definition must also include this element. Since Nevada's statute does not include this element, it is not a match to the generic definition, and it does not qualify as an aggravated felony.
The full text of the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Garcia-Santana can be read here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/12/15/12-10471.pdf