UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2013

JERRY RODRIGO HOLTERS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua A. Berman, BLAINE L. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, P.A., 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant 

Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Senior Litigation Counsel, 

Aaron R. Petty, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Rodrigo Holters, a native and citizen of 

Bolivia, petitions for review of a final administrative order of 

expedited removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security. 

For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for 

review.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack 

jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) 

(2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is 

removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated 

crimes, including aggravated felonies. Because Holters was 

found removable for having been convicted of an aggravated 

felony, under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction “to review 

factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping 

provision, such as whether [Holters] [i]s an alien and whether 

[]he has been convicted of an aggravated felony.” Ramtulla v. 

Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). Once we confirm

these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can only consider “constitutional 

claims or questions of law.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 

276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Although Holters concedes that he is a native and 

citizen of Bolivia, he denies the allegation that he is 

removable as an aggravated felon. Based on our review of the 
3

record, we conclude that Holters’s conviction under Md. Code 

Ann., Crim. Law § 7-105 (LexisNexis 2002), for attempted 

unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, constituted an attempt to 

commit a “theft offense . . . for which the term of imprisonment 

[is] at least one year,” and was therefore an aggravated felony. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), (U) (2006).1

 Accordingly, Holters

is indeed an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated 

felony, and § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the 

petition for review.2

We therefore dismiss the petition for review. We 

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 DISMISSED

 1 Accordingly, we need not consider whether Holters’s 

conviction for petit larceny under Virginia law also constitutes 

an aggravated felony.

2 We note that Holters does not raise any colorable 

questions of law or constitutional issues that would fall within 

the exception set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).