Anthony M. Csicseri, Frank S. Heard; Ryan S. Yuille;julius S. Brown; Robert A. Jaxel; Jack D.kearns; Manohar Singh, Appellants, v. Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States, 67 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayer's 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 district court's findings of fact on the issue of discriminatory intent are not clearly erroneous. See Pullman Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289090 (1982); Bishopp v. District of Columbia, 788 F.2d 781, 785-86 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

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 41.