UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT BENSUSAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                         No. 98-7342
JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General;
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-98-872-A)

Submitted: June 27, 2000

Decided: August 2, 2000

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HICKS, IRVING & HADEED,
P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant
Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Brenda E.
Ellison, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Albert Bensusan appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. Bensusan sought relief
from a deportation order, arguing that he was entitled to relief from
deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994). Bensusan challenged the
application of § 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Pen-
alty Act (AEDPA), which eliminated § 212(c) relief for aliens con-
victed of certain criminal offenses, including aggravated felonies and
most drug offenses, to his deportation proceedings. Bensusan argued
that the application of § 440(d) to his deportation proceedings had an
impermissible retroactive effect. We have reviewed the record and
affirm the court's order denying relief on the petition.

This court recently decided Tasios v. Reno, 

(4th Cir.
2000). The court held in Tasios that § 440(d) is inapplicable to cases
where the alien pleaded guilty or conceded deportability before the
enactment date of the AEDPA because it "would upset reasonable,
settled expectations and change the legal effect of prior 

. Bensusan pleaded not guilty to his charges and was con-
victed after a finding of guilt by a jury. He denied all three charges
of deportability and put the INS to its test to prove the charges. Thus,
the Tasios decision does not offer relief to Bensusan from application
of § 440(d) to his deportation proceedings.

We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2