Atraqchi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

D.C. Circuit

Atraqchi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

10 F. App'x 2

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 24, 2001·No. No. 00-7236·Published

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 3, 2000 and September 8, 2000 be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its July 3, 2000 memorandum opinion.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 3, 2000 and September 8, 2000 be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its July 3, 2000 memorandum opinion.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Atraqchi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 10 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

10 F. App'x 2 (Atraqchi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.