Case Name: Jose Fidel RANGEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III; Bureau of Prisons; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-20
Citations: 504 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 11-50111
Parties: Jose Fidel RANGEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III; Bureau of Prisons; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
Jose Fidel RANGEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III; Bureau of Prisons; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-50111
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 20, 2012.
Jose Fidel Rangel, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Rangel, federal prisoner #34985-177, an illegal alien against whom the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued a detainer 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 his exclusion from the BOP's rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. As an initial matter, the government's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is DENIED; its motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary.
We dispense with further briefing. The judgment is AFFIRMED, because the petition is foreclosed by Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 192-93 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 561, 184 L.Ed.2d 365, 81 U.S.L.W. 3229 (U.S. Oct. 29, 2012).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.