Case Name: Dain Gomez MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 06-74626
Parties: Dain Gomez MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
Dain Gomez MARTINEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74626.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Dain Gomez Martinez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Maria Isabel Robles Escutia, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Maria Noeli Gomez Robles, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Jonathan Dain Gomez Robles, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay L. Chichester, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The regulations provide that motions to reconsider shall be limited to one motion to reconsider in any case previously the subject of a final decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.