Case Name: Alfonso Acevedo MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-21
Citations: 214 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 06-74083
Parties: Alfonso Acevedo MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Alfonso Acevedo MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74083.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2006.
Filed Dec. 21, 2006.
Alfonso Acevedo Mendoza, Azusa, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Mona Maria Yousif, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the 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 courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.