United States v. Mateo Mendez-Zuniga

465 F. App'x 349
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 2012
Docket11-50337
StatusUnpublished

This text of 465 F. App'x 349 (United States v. Mateo Mendez-Zuniga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Mateo Mendez-Zuniga, 465 F. App'x 349 (5th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Mateo Mendez-Zuniga appeals his conviction for illegal reentry. He presents an argument that he concedes is 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 explain the availability of discretionary relief in an immigration proceeding does not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. See id.; see also Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 672, 677 n. 5 (5th Cir.2007). The Government’s motion for summary af-firmance is GRANTED, and the judgment *350 of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales
488 F.3d 672 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Joel Lopez-Ortiz
313 F.3d 225 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 F. App'x 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mateo-mendez-zuniga-ca5-2012.