Case Name: Damon Franklin SPENCE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-17
Citations: 354 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 09-60102
Parties: Damon Franklin SPENCE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 354
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
Damon Franklin SPENCE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-60102
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 2009.
Damon Franklin Spence, Amityville, NY, pro se.
Remi Adalemo, Andrew Nathan O’Mal-ley, John Clifford Cunningham, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony P. Nicas-tro, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, Harlin-gen, TX, for Respondent.
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Damon Franklin Spence petitions this court for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal and removing him from the United States. Spence argues that his New York state convictions for criminal possession of marijuana do not constitute aggravate felonies that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was not prosecuted as a recidivist under New York law. He also argues that under the categorical approach espoused by the Supreme Court in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), his convictions of simple possession clo not constitute drug trafficking crimes under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Spence's arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed (July 15, 2009) (No. 09-60). Further, his 1998 simple possession conviction was final before his August and December 2007 convictions. Of Smith v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 272, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2006) (discussing New York law; offense not final until one-year period for seeking discretionary review had passed).
Accordingly, Spence's petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.