Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60269 Su m m ar y Cal endar
C H R IST O P H E R A L E XA N D E R M ITC H E L L , al so kn ow n as G l en M i t chel l , al so kn ow n as C h ri st oph er AM i t chel l , al so kn ow n a s C h ri st oph er M i t chel l , al so k n o wna s C h r i s t o p h e r R M i t c h e l l , a l s o k n o wn a s M i c h a e lR e ms e m, a l s o k n o wn a s O r a l A lla n , a ls o k n o w n a s C h r is P a r k e r , a ls o k n o w n a s C h r is to p o h e rM itc h e ll, P et i t i on er
v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L, Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 34 356 247
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Chri s t o phe rAl e xa nde r M i t c he ll , a nat ivea nd c i t i z e n o f G uya na, pe t i t i o ns t h i s c o u r tt o r e v i e w t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Boa r d o f

I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BIA) af f i r m i ng t he I m m i gr at i o n J udg e ’ s (IJ) ord erf i ndi ng hi m r e m o vabl e a nd i ne l i gibl e f

o rr e li e f

f r o m r e m o va l
. M i t c he l la ba ndo ns b y fail i ng t o b r i e f a ny United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-60269 Document: 00511019990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 60269

2 ch a l l e n g e t o th e IJ ’ s d eterm i n a ti on tha t he w a s rem ov a b l e a n dn ot en titl edto a s y lu m . S eeT

h u ri v
. A sh cr oft , 3 8 0 F .3d7 8 8 , 7 9 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). M i t chel l , w h o w as convic t ed i n A pri l 200 6 i n st ate court f or posses si on of c r ac k c o c ai ne and w ho has a pr i o rs t at e c o ur tdr ug c o nvic t i o n, c o nt e nds t hatt he IJ er red bytr e a t i n g h i s A pri l200 6 conv i ct i onas equival en tt o an aggrav ated fe lo n yu n d e rth e re c id iv is t p r o v is io n s o f th e C o n tr o l l e d S u b s ta n c e s A c t. S ee 21 U
. S. C
. § 844( a)
. T he IJ c or r ec t l y det er m i ned thatM i t c hel lhad c om m i t t ed an a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yfo rim m ig r a tio n la w p u r p o s e s . SeeCarac huri

- R os e ndo v. Hol d er , 5 7 0 F .3 d2 6 3 , 2 6 6 -6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . gran t ed(D ec. 14, 200 9) ( N o. 09-60)
. Th eref

ore, M i t chel lw as i n el i gibl e f or c an cel l ati o n o f

rem oval u n der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b
. T h e is s u a n c e o f a§ 1 1 8 2 (c ) w a iv e rw o u ldn o t c h a n g e th is r e s u lt. S ee D eHoyos v. Mu ka sey , 551 F
. 3d 339 , 342
- 43 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. M oreover, t h e federalnoti ce r equ i rem en tof 21 U
. S
. C
. § 851 d i d not ap pl y t o t h e st ate c ou rt p r o c e e d in g s t h a t r e s u lte din M itc h e ll’ s s e c o n dn a r c o tic s co n v ic tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cepeda

- R i os , 5 3 0 F .3d3 3 3 , 3 3 5 n .11 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W i t h r e s pe c tt o M i t c he l l ’ s c l ai m s t hats e ve r alduepr o c e s s v i o l at i o ns occu r r e d dur i ng hi s r e m o va l pr o c e e di ngs , be c aus e t ho s e c l ai m s w e r e not e x h a u s te db e fo r e th e B IA , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to co n s id e rth e m . SeeR oyv. A sh cr oft , 3 8 9 F .3d 1 3 2 , 1 3 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , Mi t c h e l l ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
. Case: 08-60269 Document: 00511019990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010