Case Name: Daniel Gonzales GELLERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-14
Citations: 120 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 04-35034
Parties: Daniel Gonzales GELLERT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Daniel Gonzales GELLERT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-35034.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
Decided Jan. 14, 2005.
Daniel Gonzales Gellert, Salt Lake City, UT, pro se.
Mark Blank, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Gonzales Gellert appeals pro se the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Because Gellert provided no argument on appeal, he waived his right to challenge the district court's December 9, 2003 order denying his motion to reconsider. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 141 (9th Cir.1992) (issue raised but not supported by argument is considered waived).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.