Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

354 F. App'x 40

Stanley v. Holder

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided November 12, 2009

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2009-11-12

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 851 (§ 411 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on United States v. Cepeda-Rios · Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder

Decided 2009-11-12

PER CURIAM: *

¶1 Lennox Stanley, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision that Stanley was ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) because he had committed an aggravated felony. Stanley, who has been convicted in state court of possession of controlled substances on more than one occasion since his admission to the United States, contends that his second state misdemeanor conviction should not be treated as an aggravated felony under federal law because the Fifth Circuit decision allowing such treatment is no longer valid law. He also argues that his second conviction was not punishable under the federal recidivist drug-possession statute because he was not given proper notice in the proceedings of the second conviction of any intent to use the previous conviction to increase his sentence.

¶2 The BIA correctly determined that Stanley had committed an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263, 266-68 (5th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed (July 15, 2009) (No. 09-60); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B); 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(2), 3559(a). Therefore, Stanley was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Moreover, the federal notice requirement of 21 U.S.C. § 851 did not apply to the state court proceedings that resulted in Stanley’s second narcotics conviction. See United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335 n. 11 (5th Cir.2008).

¶3

¶4 Stanley’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

¶5 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

/354/fappx/40 · .json · Public domain