Mendoza v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit December 21, 2006

Mendoza v. Gonzales, 214 F. App'x 676 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because *677the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Petitioner’s third motion to reconsider is barred by numerical limitations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2004). The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *677courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Reference

Full Case Name: Alfonso Acevedo MENDOZA v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General
Status: Published