Wada v. Tomlinson

D.C. Circuit

Wada v. Tomlinson

296 F. App'x 77

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided September 15, 2008·No. No. 07-5198·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

JUDGMENT

This case 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 oral argument. See D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. The appellant has not identified any errors in the district court’s decision.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

This case 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 oral argument. See D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. The appellant has not identified any errors in the district court’s decision.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 en bane. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Wada v. Tomlinson, 296 F. App'x 77 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Pincite

296 F. App'x 77 (Wada v. Tomlinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related