
    Aurelio ARTETA-QUEZADA, Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN, REEVES COUNTY DETENTION CENTER III; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-50218.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 19, 2012.
    Aurelio Arteta-Quezada, Pecos, TX, pro se.
    Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Aurelio Arteta-Quezada, federal prisoner # 77355-179, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenges the denial of his § 2241 petition seeking the benefit of drug-rehabilitation programs and halfway house placement. The district court dismissed the action because: it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; Arteta had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and, he had no liberty interest at stake. Arteta contends the court erred because: his claim was properly brought under § 2241; he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies; exclusion from the program violated his due-process rights; and, exclusion violated his equal-protection rights.

Arteta, a native of Mexico, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He was sentenced to, inter alia, 60 months of imprisonment. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a detainer against him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on its determination that he is subject to immediate removal from the United States upon his release from Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) custody. While in prison, Arteta filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that the BOP improperly denied him certain benefits and opportunities made available under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621 and 3624 on the basis that he is not a U.S. citizen.

This petition is foreclosed by our court’s recent decision in Ricardo Gallegos-Her nandez v. United States, — F.3d -, 2012 WL 2914038 (5th Cir.2012).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     