that satisfy the “narcotic drug” requirement for purposes of N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39(1). The IJ noted that the New York schedules differ from their federal counterparts, warranting a limited review of the record of conviction to determine whether Baboolall’s criminal conduct would be prosecutable as a felony under the CSA. Compare N.Y. Public Health Law § 3306, with 21 U.S.C. § 812. It may have been unnecessary for the IJ to examine the criminal information in this case because there has been no showing that the New York schedule of controlled substances includes substances that are not on the federal schedule. That is, a conviction under N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39(1) may necessarily involve a substance classified as a controlled substance under federal law. See Pascual 707 F.3d at 405 (<HOLDING>). In any event, we conclude that the IJ
holding that a conviction under  22039 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach holding categorical approach to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a violent felony for acca purposes raises no sixth amendment issue holding that conviction under  2702a3 or 4 is an aggravated felony under  101a43f holding that a conviction under  22039 for attempted sale of cocaine qualifies as an aggravated felony holding that the categorical approach applies to  924c