Warren C. Havens v. FCC & USA, No. 12-1169 (D.C. Cir.)
USCA Case #12-1169 Document #1388157 Filed: 08/08/2012 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals
Petitioner
v.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America,
Respondents
the reply; and the motion to dismiss, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
pendency of petitioner’s request for administrative reconsideration, the agency order
petitioner challenges is not a final reviewable order with respect to petitioner, and his
petition for review is incurably premature. See Wade v. FCC, 986 F.2d 1433, 1434
(D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); TeleSTAR, Inc. v. FCC, 888 F.2d 132, 134 (D.C. Cir.
1989); United Transp. Union v. ICC, 871 F.2d 1114, 1116-18 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Once
the agency rules on petitioner’s request for administrative reconsideration, whether by
granting or denying it on the merits or by denying petitioner permission to file the
administrative reconsideration, the agency order(s) become “final” and petitioner may
seek review.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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
USCA Case #12-1169 Document #1388157 Filed: 08/08/2012 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________No. 12-1169
September Term 2011
FCC-12-26
Filed On: August 8, 2012
Warren C. Havens,Petitioner
v.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America,
Respondents
BEFORE:
Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland and Kavanaugh, Circuit JudgesO R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion to hold in abeyance, the response thereto, andthe reply; and the motion to dismiss, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED
that the motion to hold in abeyance be denied. It isFURTHER ORDERED
that the motion to dismiss be granted. Because of thependency of petitioner’s request for administrative reconsideration, the agency order
petitioner challenges is not a final reviewable order with respect to petitioner, and his
petition for review is incurably premature. See Wade v. FCC, 986 F.2d 1433, 1434
(D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); TeleSTAR, Inc. v. FCC, 888 F.2d 132, 134 (D.C. Cir.
1989); United Transp. Union v. ICC, 871 F.2d 1114, 1116-18 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Once
the agency rules on petitioner’s request for administrative reconsideration, whether by
granting or denying it on the merits or by denying petitioner permission to file the
administrative reconsideration, the agency order(s) become “final” and petitioner may
seek review.
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
USCA Case #12-1169 Document #1388157 Filed: 08/08/2012 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________No. 12-1169
September Term 2011
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
2Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.
