Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis BARRIOS-BELTRAN, also known as Jose Luiz Barrios, also known as Jose Luis Barrios Beltran, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-30
Citations: 323 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 08-20781
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis BARRIOS-BELTRAN, also known as Jose Luiz Barrios, also known as Jose Luis Barrios Beltran, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis BARRIOS-BELTRAN, also known as Jose Luiz Barrios, also known as Jose Luis Barrios Beltran, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-20781
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 30, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Luis Barrios-Beltran raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 229-31 (5th Cir.2002), which held that an immigration judge's failure to inform an alien of his eligibility for discretionary waiver of removal at his removal proceeding did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. See Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 672, 677 n. 5 (5th Cir.2007). The appellant's motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.