Carlos Lara Cepeda v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS LARA CEPEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71306
Agency No. A092-997-972
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2011**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Lara Cepeda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
NOV 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71306 2
We review de novo questions of law, Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154,
1158-59 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Cepeda is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) because his 2007
and 2008 theft convictions are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. See
id. at 1159; Flores Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008);
Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840, 843-44 (9th Cir. 2003).
Cepeda is not eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(3) because his 2008 theft conviction is an aggravated felony under
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). The docket sheet and complaint establish that he
committed theft of personal property under the modified categorical approach and
that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year. See
United States v. Rivera, __ F.3d __, No. 10-50313, 2011 WL 4430843 at *2 (9th
Cir. Sept. 23, 2011) (recidivist sentencing enhancement may be considered in
calculating the term of imprisonment under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G)); United
States v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (docket sheet
may be considered in applying modified categorical approach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --