Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

OPINION WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: In this ease, we must decide whether Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal *114 Procedure requires that a defendant be present at a pretrial hearing where the district court determines whethe

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

543 U.S. 1095 GONZALEZ-GONZALES, AKA SOTO FLORESv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-7703. Supreme Court of United States. January 18, 2005. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 108 Fed. Appx. 914.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

OPINION BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioner Noe Dolores Garcia-Flores entered the United States from Mexico in 1996 without inspection. He was arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999 and served with a notice to appear, which charged that he was subject to removal and notified him of removal proceedings. On the same day,

544 U.S. 1033 DIAZ FLORESv.GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL. No. 04-1274. Supreme Court of United States. May 16, 2005. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 104 Fed. Appx. 418.

*617 RHOADES, District Judge. I. Introduction This case comes before us on a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying Jorge Ibarra-Flores’ (“petitioner”) application for cancellation of removal. For reasons set forth below, we grant the pe

BENTON, Circuit Judge. Carlos Alberto Flores-Calderon and Magaly Edith Vilchez-Romani, husband and wife, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal for asylum. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition for review. I. Flores-Calderon and Vilchez-Rom

MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. *380This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, respondent’s

MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal. We have reviewed the response to the court’s April 16, 2007 order to show cause and respondent’s motion to dismiss in part and for summary affirmance in part, and we conclude that

MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file the certified administrative record is granted. The record has been filed. Respondent’s motion for summary disposition 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 cu

MEMORANDUM ** Jaime Peralta Flores and Katia Veronica Marin Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s physical presence determinati

MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions *606raised 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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied. All other pendi

MEMORANDUM ** Jonathan L. Flores (“Flores”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review. On the basis of a conviction document from the Alameda County Superior Court, the IJ found that Flores had been convicted of a controlled subs

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari as to Daniel G. Bello, Fidel Flores, Jose S. Olivarez, Rudy Martinez-Castillo, Lugardo Vazquez-Hernandez, Angel D. Sanabia-Sanchez, Lino I. Carrillo-Hernandez, and Hector A. Cabrera are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Co

MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s motion for summary disposition 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). The motion to reopen was not filed within 90 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229

MEMORANDUM *** Petitioner Washington Pena-Flores, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s ruling that Petitioner’s conviction for grand theft under CahPenal Code § 487(a) makes him removable for having committed an “aggravated felony.” Although we lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal,