
    Sherman Quintin SLADDEN, also known as Sherman Q. Sladden, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-60617
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 13, 2010.
    Sherman Quintín Sladden, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
    Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial Attorney, Tan-gerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sherman Quintín Sladden, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) final order of deportation and determination that Slad-den was ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because he had committed an aggravated felony. Sladden contends that his New York State conviction for attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance should not be treated as an aggravated felony under federal law. He also asserts that his due process rights were violated because the IJ issued a written decision the day after his hearing that was contrary to the decision that the IJ stated orally at the hearing.

Sufficient evidence was submitted that Sladderis state conviction was for attempted possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell it. The IJ correctly determined that this conviction constituted an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U); Jacob v. Holder, 335 Fed.Appx. 370 (5th Cir.2009); Husband v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 130, 133 (5th Cir.2008) (holding “[a]n attempt is the equivalent of the underlying offense for purposes of the aggravated felony determination”). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).

Sladden has not shown any prejudice from the alleged violation of his due process rights. See Bolvito v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 428, 438 (5th Cir.2008).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     