Opinion
No. 09-5237.
Filed On: December 3, 2009.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland and Brown, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the federal appellees' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance, and the response thereto, 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 Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant's motion for injunctive relief pertains to the length of his current term of parole supervision, which is irrelevant to his action challenging the conditions of his earlier parole term. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for injunctive relief. See United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095, 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating that district court's decision to issue an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion and its findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are "clearly erroneous").
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.