Case Name: Eladio RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-21
Citations: 190 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 06-70440
Parties: Eladio RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
Eladio RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70440.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2006.
Decided July 21, 2006.
Alejandro Garcia, Esq., City of Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-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, Eric W. Marsteller, M. Jocelyn Wright, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's January 5, 2006 final order of removal. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion for summary disposition is granted. The Clerk shall file the response received May 26, 2006.
Respondent's 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 Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (reaffirming prior holding that there is no retroactive effect in applying section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to aliens who elected to go to trial rather than plead guilty); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard for summary disposition). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
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.