2006 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 1-9-2006 

# B rowne v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3162

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B r owne v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1773. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1773NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 3162

________________ M AR LON BRO W NE, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I m m i gr at i on J udge W al t erA . D ur l i ng ( A gencyN o. A 43 577 406)

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary5, 2006 Be f o r e : BA RRY , STAPLETON A ND GR EENB ERG , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J anuary9, 2006)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM M ar l on B r ow ne pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. B ro w n e is tw e n ty -f

o u r y e a rs o ld , an d a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f T rin id a d . H e c a m e to the U ni t ed St at es i n 1992 as an i m m i gr ant . I n 2000, B r ow ne pl ed gui l t yi n t he C our tof C o m m o n P lea s f

o r M o n tg o m e ryC o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia to th e c h a rg e o f P o ss e ss io n w ith I nt entt o D el i vera C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance ( C ocai ne) . B r ow ne r ece i ved a s ent ence of thr ee to tw e n ty-th re e m o n th s in p ri s o n . T he B ur eau of

I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementchar ged B r ow ne w i t h bei ng s u b j e c tt o r e m o v a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a s a n a l i e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y, as defi ned i n Sect i on 101( a) ( 43) ( B ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , and a vi ol at i on of a l aw orr egul at i on r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . A ft era hea r i ng, the I m m i gr at i on J udge conc l uded thatB r ow ne comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , and or der ed hi s r emoval t o T r i ni dad. I n J une 2003, the B I A aff i r m ed, w i t houtopi ni on, the r es ul tof the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on, m aki ng i tthe fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on underthe im m ig ra tio n re g u la tio n s . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 4 ). I n J anuary2005, B r ow ne fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t ay ed B row ne’s r em ov al , and t ransferred the h abeas p et i t i on t o thi s C ou rtt o b e t reat ed as a pet i t i on forr evi ew pur s uantt o t he R eal I D A ct , Pub. L aw N o. 109- 13. W e have3

ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 1 0 6 (c ) o f th e R e a l ID A c t. O u r ju risd ictio n e x ten d s to ques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew , i ncl udi ng pet i t i ons forr evi ew of r emoval or der s bas ed on aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i ons . T r an v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 464, 4 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, B r ow ne ar gues thathe di d notcomm i tan aggr avat ed fe l ony b e c a u se h e d id n o t sp e n d m o re th a n o n e y e a r in p riso n . T h e ter m “ a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y ” is d e f in e d b ysta tu te, a n d in c lu d e s “ ill icit tra f f ick in g in a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e (a s d e f in e d in s ect i on 802 of Ti t l e 21) , i ncl udi ng a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e ( as defi ned i n s ect i on 924( c) o f T it le 18 ). ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(B ). T h ere are tw o test s fo r de term ining w h ethe r a s t at e drug convi ct i on cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l ony , nei t herof w hi ch cons i der s an a lie n ’s te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t. T he fi r s tt es tt r acks t he s t atut oryl anguage “i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng i n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ” and r equi r es t hat( 1) t he off ens e i s a fe l onyunderthe l aw of the convi ct i ng s over ei gn; and ( 2) t he off ens e mustcont ai n a “tr aff i cki ng el ement , ” orthe unl aw ful tr adi ng ordeal i ng of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance . G erbi erv. H ol m es , 280 F. 3d 297, 313 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he s econd, cal l ed the “hypot het i cal fede r al fel ony ” r out e, r equi r es thatt he o f f e n se b e a n a lo g o u s to a n o f f e n se p u n ish a b le u n d e r o n e o f th e f e d e ra l ac ts s p e c if

ied in 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 2) t hatcons t i tut es a fe l onyunderfede r al l aw . I d. at315. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge appe ar s t o have c oncl uded thatB r ow ne’ s convi ct i on cons t i tut es an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n yu n d e r b o th te s ts .B ro w n e a lso a rg u e s th a t h is re m o v a l sh o u ld b e sta y e d b e c a u se h e is s e e k in g to 1 w i thdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea i n s t at e courtbas ed upon hi s at t orney ’ s fai l ur e t o advi s e hi m of th e im m ig ra tio n c o n se q u e n c e s o f h is p lea . T h e f

a c t th a t B ro w n e is s e e k in g re lief in sta te c o u rt , h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t w a rr a n t a s ta y . 4 A p p lyin g th e f

ir s t te s t, B ro w n e ’s o f

f e n s e is a f

e lo n yu n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w . B r ow ne w as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng 35 Pa. St at . § 780- 113( a) ( 30) , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s the m anufa ctur e, del i very , orpos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o m anufa ctur e ordel i ver , a contr ol l ed su b sta n c e . B ysta tu te, a p e rso n w h o v io late s th is p ro v isio n w ith re sp e c t to c o c a in e is gui l tyof a f

el ony . 35 Pa. St at . § 780- 113( f) ( 1. 1) . I n addi t i on, B r ow ne’ s cr i m e by defini t i on i ncludes a t raffi cking el em ent, sat i sfy i ng the seco nd requi rem ent of the fir st t es t . B eca us e B r ow ne comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l onyunderthi s appr oach, w e nee d not ad d ress w h ethe r he sati sfies th e se co n d testset fo rth in G erb ier. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1