Nos. 06-5413, 07-5069.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: June 5, 2007.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Randolph and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Per Curiam
Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel; the motion to dismiss in No. 06-5413, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion for summary affirmance in No. 07-5069, and the opposition thereto; and appellant’s motion challenging the settlement between the Crow Tribe of Indians and the United States (styled “Dispositive Motion”), it is
ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that No. 06-5413 and No. 07-5069 be
Page 2
consolidated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance in No. 07-5069 be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. SeeTaxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Because the orders appellant seeks to appeal in No. 06-5413 were entered on April 7, 2006, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by June 6, 2006, or sixty days after the orders were entered. See
Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B). Appellant had an additional 30 days, or until July 6, 2006, to move the court to extend the time for filing her notice of appeal for excusable neglect or good cause.See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A). Accordingly, whether appellant filed her motion for an extension of time to appeal on December 14, 2006 (as the docket indicates) or in September 2006 (as appellant asserts), the district court was without discretion to grant the motion. See id. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss in No. 06-5413 be granted. Appellant filed her notice of appeal more than sixty days after the April 7, 2006 entry of the challenged orders. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s “Dispositive Motion” be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Page 1