P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60387 Su m m ar y Cal endar K IR E N K U M A R B H A R T I , a ls o k n o w n a s K ir e n k u m a rS a tis h B h a r ti, 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 75- 780- 661 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P et i t i on er Ki ren K u m ar B h art i , a na t ive an d ci t i zen o f t h e U n i t ed K in g d o m , p e tit io n s fo rare v ie w o f a n o r d e ro f th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( BI A) . I tf

o und hi m i n el i gibl e f o rc anc e l l at i o n o f

r e m o va lb e c aus e hi s s e c o nd 1998 M i ss i ss i ppi c onvi c t i on f or si m pl e pos se ss i on o f a c ont r oll ed s ubst ance w as a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yfo rp u r p o s e s o f im m ig r a tio n la w . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60387

2 B h a rti’ s a r gu m en t th a t L opez v. G on zales , 5 4 9 U .S . 4 7 , 5 8 -6 0 (20 0 6 ), o ve r r ul e d Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an chez- V i l lalobos , 4 1 2 F .3d 572 , 576 - 77 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), is u n a v a ilin g . S ee Carac h u ri-R osend o v. Hol d er , 570 F. 3d 263, 266- 68 (5 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led(July 15, 2009) ( N o. 09- 60) . F u r t h e r , we h ave rej ect ed B h art i ’ s argum en tt h at a s econ d o r su bsequ en tst ate of fen se can n otbe a fel on y u n der 21 U . S . C . § 8 4 4 u n l ess t h e prosecutorgives noti ce pu rsuan tt o 21 U . S . C . § 851 of t h e i n t en tt o use a previ ou s c on vi ct i on t o i n crease th e s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cepeda - R i os , 530 F . 3d333 , 336 n. 11 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). Car ac hur i - R o s e ndo a ffirm e dth e co n tin u in gv a li d ityof Cepeda - R i os . Car ac hur i - R o s e ndo , 570 F. 3da t2 66 . Fi nall y, i n Car ac hur i - R o s e ndo w e rej ect ed B hart i ’ s ar gum entt hata s ec ond pos se ss i on o f fens e thatr ender s an al i en an a g g r a v a te dfe lo n m u s t h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u te du n d e ras ta te r e c id iv is m la w fo rit to b e co n s id e r e da n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yfo rim m ig r a tio n p u r p o s e s . Se ei d. at268. U n der Car ac hur i - R o s e ndo , B hart ii s c ons i der ed t o havec om m i tt ed an ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny f o r i m m i gr at i o n pur po s e s be c aus e , s i nc e hi s ad m i s s i o n t o t he U n i t ed S t ates, he h as been convi ct ed on m ore th an one occasi on of possess i on of aco n tr o lle ds u b s ta n c e . Se ei d. at 266 ; § 844(a) . B h art i i s t h eref ore i n el i gibl e f

or c a n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. S ee Carach u ri - R osend o, 5 7 0 F . 3 da t2 6 6 - 6 8 ; 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 b (a). P ET I T I ON D ENI ED .