HERRICK v. U.S. CUSTOMS, 09-5004 (D.C. Cir. 7-9-2009)

Peter Herrick, P.A., Appellant v. United States Customs and Border Protection, Appellee.

No. 09-5004.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: July 9, 2009.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Tatel, and Brown, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the court’s order to show cause filed on April 2, 2009, and the response to the order to show cause and opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is FURTHERORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance 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). Appellant is not eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees because it has not established that it has “substantially prevailed” in its lawsuit. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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