Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel GARCIA-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Sergio Antonio Santander, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 108 F. App'x 983
Docket Number: No. 03-50275
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel GARCIA-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Sergio Antonio Santander, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 983–983

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel GARCIA-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Sergio Antonio Santander, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-50275.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
Mara A. Blatt, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-App elle e.
Evers Jason Leach, Law Offices of E. Jason Leach, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Victor Manuel Garcia-Dominguez appeals from his illegal reentry conviction. He collaterally challenges his 1988 deportation proceedings on the basis that he was denied his right to appeal when he was removed from the United States prior to the expiration of the ten-day period for appealing the deportation order. We have appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 839, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987).
We agree with the district court that under the circumstances of Garcia's case, his voluntary return to Mexico two days before the expiration of the appellate deadline did not render his deportation proceedings "fundamentally unfair" and, therefore, he is not entitled to relief. See United States v. Mendoza-Mata, 322 F.3d 829, 832 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.