Case Name: Cesar Valentin GARCIA-AGUILERA, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-14
Citations: 517 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 10-50574
Parties: Cesar Valentin GARCIA-AGUILERA, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Cesar Valentin GARCIA-AGUILERA, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-50574
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 14, 2013.
Cesar Valentin Garda-Aguilera, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Proceeding pro se and informa pauper-is, Cesar Valentin Garcia-Aguilera, federal prisoner # 89647-008, an alien against whom the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued a de-tainer subjecting him to immediate removal from the United States upon release from Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the BOP's excluding him from rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. Although he correctly contends the district court erred in ruling it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 193-94 (5th Cir.2012), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 561, 184 L.Ed.2d 365 (2012), the exclusion issue is foreclosed by Gallegos-Hernandez, 688 F.3d at 194-96 (exclusion of aliens subject to ICE detainer from halfway houses and rehabilitation satisfies rational-basis review).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.