U. S. v. CALLAHAM, 06-3052 (D.C. Cir. 10-10-2007)
United States of America, Appellee v. Mark L. Callaham, Appellant.
No. 06-3052.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: October 10, 2007.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of appellant's brief, and the motion 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. SeeTaxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant's counsel failed to adequately present the claim for review by making nothing more than a conclusory assertion. SeeS.E.C. v. Banner Fund Intern., 211 F.3d 602, 613-614 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Therefore appellant has failed to demonstrate that the district court's credibility determination was clearly erroneous. See United States v.Broadie, 452 F.3d 875, 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the 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.Page 1