Court Opinion

ID: 64843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 05:23:25+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.033676
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                          February 18, 2009
                                     No. 08-20469
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ADILIO RIVERA, also known as Jose Alirio Rivera, also known as Jose
Nochez-Rivera, also known as Jose A Rivera, also known as Jose Rivera

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:07-CR-428-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Adilio Rivera
raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d
225, 229-31 (5th Cir. 2002), which held that an immigration judge’s failure to
inform an alien of his eligibility for discretionary waiver of removal at his
removal proceeding did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. See
Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 672, 677 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007). The

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                               No. 08-20469

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                     2