Court Opinion

ID: 2963332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:08:32.408527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:42.138668
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 15, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2108                         HENRY H. AMSDEN, H.H. AMSDEN & SONS,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Henry H. Amsden, on brief pro se.
            _______________            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, and  T. David  Plourde,
            _______________                                 _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and
                 __________            the  record on  appeal.  There  was no error  in the district            court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter            jurisdiction  nor  its denial  of  the  subsequent motion  to            vacate on the additional ground of mootness.                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________  ___