Case Name: Sergio MEDINA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-21
Citations: 189 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 06-71090
Parties: Sergio MEDINA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 189
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
Sergio MEDINA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71090.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2006.
Decided July 21, 2006.
Sergio Medina-Perez, Canoga Park, 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, John S. Hogan, Esq., San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, HAWKINS and THOMAS, 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 with respect to the denial of the motion to reconsider 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).
Respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to the denial of the motion to reopen is granted. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2006).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.