United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-5326 September Term, 2023 1:22-cv-02375-UNA Filed On: November 14, 2023 Harry Nie, Appellant v. Rebecca Beach Smith, Judge, et al., Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 24, 2022 be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal courts. Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Additionally, appellant is not entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks, as appellate and post-judgment review of his conviction provided an adequate remedy at law for his claims. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971) (equitable relief not available if an adequate remedy at law exists); Pugh v. Ashcroft, 116 Fed. App’x 287, 288 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that “equitable relief is available only in the absence of adequate remedies at law” and the appellant had “an adequate legal remedy for any judicial error or misconduct in the form of post-judgment proceedings in the appropriate courts”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-5326 September Term, 2023 Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2