Case Name: Francisco Javier PEREZ-GARAY, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Perez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-27
Citations: 164 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 05-74812
Parties: Francisco Javier PEREZ-GARAY, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Perez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Francisco Javier PEREZ-GARAY, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Perez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74812.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 2006.
Decided Jan. 27, 2006.
Reuben M. Emanuel, Law Office of Reuben M. Emanuel, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ — -U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, 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 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is construed as a motion for summary disposition. So construed, the 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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. See United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999).
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.
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.