Samuel Douglas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998928671-2] Originating case number: A090-599-344 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999048906]. Mailed to: Samuel Douglas. [12-2067]

Appeal: 12-2067

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/22/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2067

SAMUEL ALEXANDER DOUGLAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

February 15, 2013

Decided:

February 22, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Alexander Douglas, Petitioner Pro Se.
Robbin Kinmonth
Blaya,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2067

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/22/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Samuel
Jamaica,

Alexander

petitions

Immigration

for

Appeals

Douglas,

review

(“Board”)

of

a
an

native
order

summarily

and
of

citizen

the

dismissing

Board

his

of
of

appeal

from the immigration judge’s order finding him removable.

We

deny the petition for review.
Douglas stood convicted of possession of more than ½
ounce but not more than five pounds of marijuana with the intent
to distribute, a felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2248.1

(2009),

and

possession

of

a

controlled

substance

with

intent to distribute, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim Law
§ 5-602

(LexisNexis

2012).

Based

on

the

two

convictions,

Douglas was served with a notice to appear (“NTA”), alleging
that

he

was

removable.

The

immigration

judge

sustained

the

charges in the NTA and found Douglas removable for having been
convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)
(2006),

two

crimes

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
offense, 8

U.S.C.

§

of

moral

(ii),

and

turpitude,
a

1227(a)(2)(B)(i).

8

controlled
We

have

U.S.C.
substance

reviewed

the

record and conclude that the immigration judge properly found
Douglas was removable.
The Board’s summary dismissal is reviewed for abuse of
discretion.

See Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d 1319, 1321

(11th Cir. 2006); Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th
2

Appeal: 12-2067

Cir.

Doc: 13

2005);

2003).

Filed: 02/22/2013

Rioja

v.

Pg: 3 of 3

Ashcroft,

317

F.3d

514,

515

(5th

Cir.

The Board dismissed Douglas’ appeal because he “fail[ed]

to specify the reasons for the appeal on Form EOIR-26 or Form
EOIR-29 (Notices of Appeals) or other document filed therewith”
and he failed to file the brief or statement in support of the
appeal that he indicated would be filed and failed to explain
his

failure

(2012).

to

do

so.

8

C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A),

(E)

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Board

did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing the appeal.
In the notice of appeal, Douglas failed to cite an error of law
with the immigration judge’s decision or cite to any authority.
Accordingly,

we

deny

the

petition

for

review.

grant Douglas’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

We

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3