Margarito Ruelas-Ramirez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARGARITO RUELAS-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71435
Agency No. A037-199-502
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Margarito Ruelas-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71435 2
We review de novo questions of law, Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 971 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we deny the petitions for review.
The minute order contained in the record of conviction establishes that
Ruelas-Ramirez’s 2007 conviction for violating California Health and Safety Code
§ 11378 related to methamphetamine, a federally defined controlled substance.
See United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699, 702 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(per curiam) (a clerk’s minute order may be considered in applying the modified
categorical approach); see also United States v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 963, 968-70
(9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (approving reliance on entries on a docket sheet to
establish the underlying facts of the crime committed). Ruelas-Ramirez’s
contention that the language of the minute order is ambiguous and may not reflect
the stipulated factual basis for his plea is unpersuasive. See Snellenberger, 548
F.3d at 702 (“Having failed to challenge or correct the minute order in state court –
perhaps because there wasn’t a basis for doing so – [the defendant] is now bound
by what it says . . . .”). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding Ruelas-
Ramirez removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B)(i).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --