Castillo Najera v. Gonzales

Filing 920060627


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2260 ALEXIS B. CASTILLO NAJERA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-446-367) Submitted: May 5, 2006 Decided: June 27, 2006 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas A. Elliot, Thomas K. Ragland, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Alison Marie Igoe, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexis B. Castillo Najera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") order finding him removable as a result of a state conviction for possession of cocaine. Najera contends the charge to which he pled guilty is not a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A)(2000). He further contends it is a violation of We deny the petition for review. his right to equal protection. We find there is no merit to Najera's claim that the prior conviction for drug possession should not be considered a conviction for removability purposes. F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2003). equal protection claim. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We See Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 We further find no merit to Najera's dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?