of a weapon and pled guilty to harassment); see also Stein v. Cnty. of Westchester, N.Y., 410 F.Supp.2d 175, 179 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (dismissing § 1983 action brought by former inmate who successfully challenged conviction for, inter alia, rape and sodomy, later pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, and filed suit upon release). •These cases, non-binding as they are, nevertheless reflect the continued vitality of the Cameron line of precedent. McNeill is especially persuasive as a close analog; and both of my colleagues in the majority on the present panel sat on the panel in McNeill. The majority relies on other courts’ opinions in cases that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the present. See Maj. Op. at 61-62 n. 2 (citing Smith v. Gonzales, 222 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Zain, 79 F.3d 18, 19 (5th Cir. 1996)
holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime holding that a conviction vacated by operation of a state rehabilitative statute still constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes holding that defendants statement in defendants brief that a case upon which it was relying was pending on appeal was a judicial admission of that fact holding that where the government filed an information identifying the conviction relied upon to enhance defendants sentence and counsel told the court that the defendant did not dispute the conviction the trial judges sentencing ritual here complied with the requirements of  851b holding that heck was inapplicable where court vacated defendants conviction and government filed nolle prosequi indicating that it would not prosecute defendants case further