Anthony M. Csicseri, Frank S. Heard Ryan S. Yuille Julius S. Brown Robert A. Jaxel Jack D. Kearns Manohar Singh v. Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States

67 F.3d 972
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 1995
Docket94-5355
StatusUnpublished

This text of 67 F.3d 972 (Anthony M. Csicseri, Frank S. Heard Ryan S. Yuille Julius S. Brown Robert A. Jaxel Jack D. Kearns Manohar Singh v. Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

67 F.3d 972

314 U.S.App.D.C. 278

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
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.

No. 94-5355.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1995.
Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Denied Oct. 20, 1995.

Before: SILBERMAN, GINSBURG, and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F.3d 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-m-csicseri-frank-s-heard-ryan-s-yuille-julius-s-brown-robert-cadc-1995.