Case Name: Bolanos MUNOS-RODRIGO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; United States Attorney General; Geo Group; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-30
Citations: 537 F. App'x 474
Docket Number: No. 13-50329
Parties: Bolanos MUNOS-RODRIGO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; United States Attorney General; Geo Group; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 474–474

Head Matter:
Bolanos MUNOS-RODRIGO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; United States Attorney General; Geo Group; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-50329
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 30, 2013.
Bolanos Munos-Rodrigo, Creeves III, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bolanos Munos-Rodrigo, federal prisoner #29561-018, 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 ("IFP") to appeal the denial 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.