JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 84(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 28, 2014, be affirmed. The district court dismissed appellant’s Bivens action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Although he argues that Heck is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Framers’ intent, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck. See, e.g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983) (per curiam) (“Needless to say, only this Court may overrule one of its precedents.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.