United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5164 September Term, 2025 1:12-cv-01515-RBW Filed On: October 3, 2025 David Kissi, Appellant v. United States Department of Justice, Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, 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). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion for appointment of counsel, appellant’s affidavits, and the supplement to the brief, it is ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed as moot because appellant has paid the docketing fee. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s April 14, 2025 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant leave to file a motion to reconsider and accompanying affidavit because appellant did not file the documents within a “reasonable time” after entry of the order he sought to reconsider and appellant offered no valid basis for reopening the closed case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), (c).

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5164 September Term, 2025 Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2