Case Name: Gregory S. HOLLISTER, Appellant v. Barry SOETORO, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-22
Citations: 368 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161
Parties: Gregory S. HOLLISTER, Appellant v. Barry SOETORO, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al., Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: HENDERSON, TATEL, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 154–154

Head Matter:
Gregory S. HOLLISTER, Appellant v. Barry SOETORO, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
March 22, 2010.
John David Hemenway, Law Office of John D. Hemenway, Washington, DC, for Appellant.
Marc Elias, Andrew Harris Werbrock, Perkins Coie LLP, R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Appellees.
BEFORE: HENDERSON, TATEL, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F.Supp.2d 179 (D.D.C.2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C.2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.