2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-22-2004 

# K a r a volo s v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1549

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" K a r a vo los v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 925. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/925NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-1549
KONST ANTINOS K YRIAKO S KARA VOLO S, Petitioner

v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE UNIT ED STA TES OF AMERI CA, Respondent
PETITI ON FOR REVIEW OF AN O RDER OF THE BUREAU OF IMM IGRATION APPEALS Agency No. A43-095-750
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

February 24, 2004
Bef or e: RENDEL L, BARRY, and RO SE NN , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: March 22, 2004)

OPI NION

BA RR Y, Circuit

Judge Bec ause we write o nly for the parties in this m atter, w e w ill dispen se w ith a fu ll1 He w as also con victed in 198 5 of crim inal possession of a w eapon in Crimina l Court

for t he Cit y of New York and in2001 of un lawfuluse of a control led s ubst ance i n U.S. Dis trict C our t (E.D .N.Y .). 2 recitation of

the fact s and li mit our di scussi on only to thos e facts necessar

y t o reach our decisi on. Petitioner

Konstanti nos Kyri akos Karavolos , a nat ive and ci tize n of Greece, pled guilty

to conspi racy

to use and t

raffic in counte rfeit

access devi ces, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(1) and 1029(c)(2). He w as sentenced to home detention, five-y ears’ probati on, and $60, 800.00 res tit ution. 1 The Immigrati on and Natural izat ion Servi ce (“INS”) char ged him with bei ng removable as an ali en convict ed of an aggravat ed felony that involves fr aud or decei t in which t he loss to the vic tim exceeds $10,000, and a removal hearing was held. The stat ute under whic h petitioner was convi cted does not ind icate any p artic ular mo neta ry loss. The immigrat ion judge ( “IJ”) admitt ed as proof of convi ction t he crimi nal judgment and t

he present ence inves tigation repor t (“PSR”). As relevant

here, t he judgment of convi ction s tate d: (1) that pe titioner pl ed guilt y t o count one of t

he indictment; (2) that the a mou nt of restitution ordered was $ 60,800.00 ; (3) that “[t]he court ado pts th e fa ctua l find ing s an d gu ideli ne a ppl icatio n in the p rese nten ce re por t exc ept . . . [t]he Court

lowers re sti tuti on amount to [$60, 800.00] .
. . . ” The PSR indicate d that petitioner pled gu ilty

to Cou nt One of a tw o coun t indictment, and th at he and o thers conspir ed to traffic i n counterf eit a ccess devi ces, r esult ing in a monet ary loss t o three banking ins tit

utions in the total s um of $113,946.03. The IJ dete rmined that petitioner3

had bee n convi cted

of an agg ravated fel onybecaus e the fact ual r ecitati on in t

he PSR ind icate d th at the am oun t of th e los s su ffe red by the victi ms wa s gre ater t han $10 ,000
. Petitioner appe aled t o the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals (“BIA”). Although he conceded that

the offense to which he pl ed guilt y i nvolved fra

ud or decei t, he assert ed that t he I J erro neo usly u sed the P SR to fin d th at the loss to th e vic tims exc eed ed $ 10,0 00. Th e B IA con clud ed th at the IJ did not err. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)(C), we lack jur isdi ction to review a fi nal order of removal against an al ien convi cted of an aggr avated fel ony, and we must dismis s the petit ion
. Drakes v. Zimski , 240 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2001). Aggravat ed felony include s “an offense t

hat involves fraud or

deceit in which the loss t o the vic tim or victims exceeds $10, 000.” 8 U.S. C. § 1101(a)( 43)(M)(i) . Petitioner does not cont est t

hat his offens e involve d fraud or dece it. All he argue s is t hat the IJ err ed in relyi ng on the PSR to establ ish a l oss of more than $10,000 and t hat, theref

ore, he di d not commit an agg rav ated felo ny. W e dis agr ee. We do not have to rea ch the question of whether the amount of l oss set

forth in the PSR w as properly consi dered because the judgment of conv iction, admitted by t he IJ, esta blish es th e req uisite loss by ord erin g th at pe tition er p ay rest itutio n of $60 ,800
. Inde ed, the Distric t Cou rt indica ted in th e judg men t that the $ 60,80 0 rep resen ted on ly partial restit

ution, and that i t “did not credit [petiti oner] with the entire amount [of loss] since he was one of f

ive to s ix people who robbed the bank. ” Because the j udgment of4

conviction, even without the PSR, sufficientl y establ ishes that pet itioner’ s offense involved a

loss in excess of $10, 000 and was an aggravat ed felony , we will dismis s the petit ion for lack of ju risdi ction
.