Case Name: Armando FLORES-HERNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-17
Citations: 585 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 11-72135
Parties: Armando FLORES-HERNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
Armando FLORES-HERNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72135.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2014.
Filed Oct. 17, 2014.
Marlon L. Sinder, Esquire, Gleckman & Sinder, Los Angeles, CA, Howard Robert Davis, Law Offices of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner.
John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christina J. Martin, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Flores-Herna petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying Flores-Herna adjustment of status on account of his 2005 conviction for possessing a controlled substance "while armed with a loaded, operable firearm." See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11370.1 (1996). Flores-Herna argues his conviction is eligible for relief under the safe-harbor provision of the Federal First Offender Act, which requires that a petitioner's conviction be for "possession of drugs, or an equivalent or lesser charge such as possession of drug paraphernalia." Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 812 (9th Cir.2009), overruled on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc); see also Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2013). On its face, Flores-Herna's 2005 conviction requires more conduct than mere possession of drugs; the conviction requires possession of drugs while armed with a loaded and operable firearm. The conviction therefore cannot qualify as "possession of drugs, or an equivalent or lesser charge." Ramirez-Altamirano, 563 F.3d at 812.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.