Howard A. Daniel, Appellant, v. United States of America, 946 F.2d 1564 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel and/or the motion for remand, and the opposition thereto; and the motion for summary affirmance, and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the request for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and is 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 September 10, 1990. 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). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for remand be denied.

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.