Bartolo Pedro v. Trominski, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40292
Summary Calendar
FRANCISCO PASCUAL BARTOLO PEDRO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
E.M. TROMINSKI, District Director,
Immigration and Naturalization Service;
JANET RENO, United States Attorney General;
DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner of Immigration
and Naturalization Service; U.S. ATTORNEY
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-97-CV-282
- - - - - - - - - -
December 1, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Pascual Bartolo Pedro (Bartolo), a native and
citizen of Guatemala who first entered the United States in 1985
and was apprehended upon reentry in 1997, appeals from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for lack of jurisdiction based upon 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
Bartolo’s § 2241 petition is both an attempt to prevent the INS
from effectuating its 1998 removal order and an appeal of the INS

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-40292
-2-
** American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F.Supp. 796
(N.D. Cal. 1991)
proceeding determining that he was ineligible to benefits from
the ABC Settlement. R. 206-07, 252-53. Accordingly, the
requested relief falls within the ambit of § 1252(g), and the
district court correctly held that it was without jurisdiction to
consider it. See § 1252(g); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 (1999).
Because we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment that it
lacked jurisdiction over Bartolo’s § 2241 petition, we need not
address his contentions that: 1) he was not “apprehended at the
time of entry” because he had not actually entered the United
States when he was apprehended; 2) the deprivation of rights due
him under the ABC Settlement** violated due process; and 3) the
district court abused its discretion by overruling his objections
to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “without
comment” and by denying “without comment” his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion to amend judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --