Antonio Jose Fernandes Monteiro, a/k/a Antonio Monteiro v. JANET RENO, United States Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO JOSE FERNANDES MONTEIRO,
a/k/a Antonio Monteiro,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6952
JANET RENO, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-99-899-AM)
Submitted: July 20, 2000
Decided: October 10, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Antonio Jose Fernandes Monteiro, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Monteiro petitions for habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). The petition was initially filed in the district
court, which administratively transferred the petition to this court.
The district court declined to consider the habeas petition on the
ground that it lacked jurisdiction under the permanent rules of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 ("IIRIRA").
Monteiro is an alien facing deportation based on his conviction of
an aggravated felony under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act ("INA"), codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)
(West 1999). Because Monteiro is an alien who was convicted of a
deportable criminal offense, the IIRIRA divests this court of subject
matter jurisdiction over his case. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(C)
(West 1999); Wireko v. Reno, 211 F.3d 833, 2000 WL 543041 (4th
Cir. 2000); Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 542-43 (4th Cir. 1999); Hall
v. INS, 167 F.3d 852, 854-55 (4th Cir. 1999) (applying the IIRIRA's
transitional rules).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
DISMISSED
2

-- 2 of 2 --