**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **2013**

JERRY RODRIGO HOLTERS , P etitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General , Respondent.

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

.

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

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition d ismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joshua A. Berman, BLAINE L. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland , for Pe titioner. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Rodrigo Holters, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of a final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 di smiss 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 certai n 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

- strippin g 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
removab le as an aggravated felon. Based on our review of the3 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 offen se . . . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year , ” and was therefore an aggravated felon y . 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 ques tions of law or constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).