U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2004

Black v. Ashcroft

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided September 24, 2004

110 F. App'x 130

Counsel

Richard E. Gardiner, Law Office of Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Robert C. Lawrence, US Attorney Library, Roscoe Conklin Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Rhonda C. Fields, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Hahn v. S. Janson (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Torsilieri, G. (Pa. 2024)
Zherka v. Barr (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
In the Interest of J.B. (Pa. 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. Black not having appealed the district court’s denial of his claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed solely for the reasons stated in Black v. Snow, 272 F.Supp.2d 21, at 25-27 (D.D.C. 2003), denying Black’s claim under the Administrative Procedure Act and his petition for a writ of mandamus.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.