James L. Martin, Appellant, v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, et al, 966 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 966 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1992) May 8, 1992. Rehearing and Rehearing En BancDenied July 24, 1992

Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of the motion to expedite appeal; the motion for summary reversal, the opposition thereto and the reply; the motions for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motions for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed October 4, 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). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite appeal be dismissed as moot.

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.