Case Name: Utuh Rahardja PUTRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-24
Citations: 190 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 05-1890
Parties: Utuh Rahardja PUTRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 243–243

Head Matter:
Utuh Rahardja PUTRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1890.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2006.
Decided: July 24, 2006.
Aex Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Utuh Rahardja Putra, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge's ruling finding Putra removable and denying his motion for a third continuance of his removal proceeding pending adjudication of his labor certification application. On appeal, Putra challenges the denial of a third continuance.
"The immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006). Whether to grant such a motion "is within the sound discretion of the immigration judge and is reviewed for abuse of discretion only." Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). Based on the materials before us, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Putra's motion for a third continuance.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.
PETITION DENIED.