Case Name: Alexis B. Castillo NAJERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-27
Citations: 188 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 05-2260
Parties: Alexis B. Castillo NAJERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
Alexis B. Castillo NAJERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Respondents.
No. 05-2260.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 5, 2006.
Decided: June 27, 2006.
Thomas A. Elliot, Thomas K. Ragland, Elliot & Mayock, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Alison Marie Igoe, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alexis B. Castillo Najera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") order finding him removable as a result of a state conviction for possession of cocaine. Najera contends the charge to which he pled guilty is not a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (2000). He further contends it is a violation of his right to equal protection. We deny the petition for review.
We find there is no merit to Najera's claim that the prior conviction for drug possession should not be considered a conviction for removability purposes. See Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir.2003). We further find no merit to Najera's equal protection claim.
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED.