
    Carlos Lara CEPEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71306.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 8, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 8, 2011.
    Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 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, 658 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (9th Cir.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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     