Opinion
No. 06-7108.
April 8, 2008.
Consolidated with 07-7130.
BEFORE: Henderson, Rogers, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the attorney fee award, see Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 901 (D.C. Cir. 1980), or in denying an evidentiary hearing on the "payment for testimony" allegations made in support of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. See Steverson v. Global Santa Fe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 305-06 (5 Cir. 2007) (setting out abuse-of-discretion standard); Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342-43 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Hall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94, 99 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.