Case Name: Ruben RODRIGUEZ RESENDIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 06-70046
Parties: Ruben RODRIGUEZ RESENDIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
Ruben RODRIGUEZ RESENDIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70046.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2006.
Decided July 3, 2006.
Ruben Rodriguez Resendis, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Ciria Lopez Penaloza, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
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, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, 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 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (establishing time and numerical limits for motions to reopen); see also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. 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).
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.