Case Name: Luis Alvaro OROZCO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; United States Attorney General; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-25
Citations: 540 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 12-50868
Parties: Luis Alvaro OROZCO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; United States Attorney General; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Luis Alvaro OROZCO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; United States Attorney General; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-50868
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 2013.
Luis Alvaro Orozco, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Alvaro Orozco, federal prisoner # 88720-012, 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 the custody of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), moves to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFF') to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the BOP's exclusion of him from rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. His arguments are foreclosed by Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 192-93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 561, 184 L.Ed.2d 365 (2012).
Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.