Ron Nichols, Appellant, v. Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce, et al, 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, the motion for summary affirmance, the court's order to show cause filed February 28, 1992, and the lack of any response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the request for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and wholly unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 29 (1987). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order filed March 7, 1991. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.