Case Name: Rene CASTRO-JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John M. BULGER, Acting Director Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 04-60271
Parties: Rene CASTRO-JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John M. BULGER, Acting Director Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
Rene CASTRO-JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John M. BULGER, Acting Director Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-60271.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Rene Castro-Jiminez, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rene Castro-Jiminez, federal prisoner # 90503-000, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his continued immigration detention. Castro, an inadmissible Mariel Cuban, argues pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), that his continued detention is violative of his constitutional rights.
Castro's claim is foreclosed by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 988 F.2d 1437, 1442 (5th Cir.), amended by, Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir.1993). See Rios v. INS, 324 F.3d 296, 297 (5th Cir.2003). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Castro's request that his appeal be stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.2003), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 1143, 157 L.Ed.2d 966 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2004) (No. 03-7434), is denied. Despite the grant of certiorari, we continue to follow our own binding precedent. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir.1986). Castro's request for appointment of counsel is similarly denied.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS FOR STAY OF APPEAL AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.