No. 06-5141.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed on: January 31, 2007.
BEFORE: Henderson, Randolph, and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto; and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is,
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 be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See TaxpayersWatchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined appellant was not entitled to a fee waiver because he neither demonstrated that the requested material would benefit the public nor that he could disseminate the material to the public.See Larson v. CIA, 843 F.2d 1481, 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Ely v. United States Postal Service, 753 F.2d 163, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The agency also properly claimed Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 2 and 7(C). SeeSchiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Exemption 2); National Archives and Records Admin. v.Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (Exemption 7(C)).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.