Xiangyuan Zhu, Appellant v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., Appellees.

No. 06-5388.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
December 3, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

ORDER
Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is.

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Page 2

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge; and Sentelle and Brown, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam

ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to recuse the members of this panel, the motion for appointment of counsel, the motion to vacate the court’s order filed August 17, 2007, the petition for panel rehearing concerning that order, and the motion for an extension of time to file any response, it is.

ORDERED that the motion to recuse the members of this panel be denied.See, e.g., Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (noting that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”). 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 any likelihood of success on the merits. It is.

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to vacate the court’s order filed August 17, 2007, and the petition for panel rehearing concerning that order be denied. As noted in the August 17 order, the court has already held that appellant’s motion for reconsideration was properly treated as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied rehearing and rehearing en banc concerning the matter. Thus, there is no reason for the court to revisit the issue. As for subject matter jurisdiction, the district court did not dismiss appellant’s claims against the Kansas appellees for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead dismissed them for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Thus, appellant’s argument concerning subject matter jurisdiction provides no grounds for relief. It is.

Page 3

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time to file any response be dismissed as moot.

Page 1