Case Name: Maria Osbelia Perez GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-25
Citations: 202 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 05-76542
Parties: Maria Osbelia Perez GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
Maria Osbelia Perez GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76542.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.
Filed Sept. 25, 2006.
Maria Osbelia Perez Gonzalez, Riverside, CA, pro se.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Andrew C. Maclachlan, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, 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 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). The immigration judge's denial of a continuance did not amount to clear abuse. See Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir.1985) (stating that "decision to grant or deny continuances is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear abuse"). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
Respondent's alternative motion to dismiss is 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.