Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05227/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05227-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Appellee
David Earl Wattleton
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5227 September Term, 2015

1:15-cv-01221-UNA

Filed On: November 30, 2015

David Earl Wattleton,

Appellant

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney

General,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Brown, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 29, 2015, be

affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint because appellant has

previously presented the same claim, which this court has rejected on the merits. See

Wattleton v. Holder, 534 Fed. Appx. 3 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 2013) (“Because 18 U.S.C. §

4247(g) does not set forth any prohibition or requirement, it does not raise any due

process concern based on a lack of fair notice.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Per Curiam

USCA Case #15-5227 Document #1585667 Filed: 11/30/2015 Page 1 of 1