Case Name: Oscar Sabido VALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-15
Citations: 123 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 05-9501
Parties: Oscar Sabido VALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
Oscar Sabido VALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-9501.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 15, 2005.
Mike Comfort, Acting Dist. Dir., Immigration & Naturalization Service, Denver, CO, Ari Nazarov, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
On February 4, 2005, Alberto R. Gonzales became the United States Attorney General. In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, Mr. Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
On January 20, 2005, we directed petitioner Oscar Sabido Valdivia to show cause within fourteen days why his petition for review should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On February 7, petitioner moved for an extension of time to file a response to the show cause order. We granted petitioner's motion and petitioner's response deadline was extended to February 28. Having received no response, we hold that we lack jurisdiction over petitioner's petition for review for the reasons set out in our January 20 order. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.