Case Name: Segundo M. GUALLPA, a/k/a Manuel Guallpa, a/k/a Segundo Guallpa-Tacuri, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-10
Citations: 80 F. App'x 824
Docket Number: No. 02-2148
Parties: Segundo M. GUALLPA, a/k/a Manuel Guallpa, a/k/a Segundo Guallpa-Tacuri, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 824–824

Head Matter:
Segundo M. GUALLPA, a/k/a Manuel Guallpa, a/k/a Segundo Guallpa-Tacuri, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 02-2148.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2003.
Decided Nov. 10, 2003.
Mary A. Berlin, Law Office of Mary Ann Berlin, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Allen R. Dyer, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Segundo M. Guallpa petitions for review an order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service reinstating a prior removal order. Insofar as Guallpa challenges the underlying removal order, we have no jurisdiction. See Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 924 (9th Cir.2003); Avila-Macias v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 108, 115 (3d Cir.2003); see also Smith v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 425, 429 (4th Cir.2002). Furthermore, we find Guallpa was not prejudiced by the procedures leading to the order reinstating the removal order.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED