Case: 09-5080

Document: 1233799

Filed: 03/08/2010

Page: 1

United States Court of Appeals
F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

____________

No. 09-5080

September Term 2009
08-cv-02254 Filed On: March 8, 2010

Gregory S. Hollister, Appellant v. Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al., Appellees -----------------------------Consolidated with 09-5161

BEFORE:

Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to substitute reply brief, the response thereto, and the reply; the motion for judicial notice filed September 23, 2009, in No. 09-5161; the Clerk’s order to show cause filed October 20, 2009, the response thereto, and the reply; the joint motion for judicial notice, the response thereto, and the reply; the corrected motion by Lawrence J. Joyce and Philip J. Berg for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants, the lodged corrected brief, appellants’ opposition to the motion, and the reply; the motion for oral argument, the response thereto, and the reply; and the corrected joint appendix and the briefs submitted by the parties, it is ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to substitute reply brief be dismissed as moot in light of appellants’ filing of a corrected reply brief on January 7, 2010. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for judicial notice be denied. The materials submitted by appellants are irrelevant to the disposition of these appeals. See Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2009). It is

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1233799

Filed: 03/08/2010

Page: 2

United States Court of Appeals
F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

____________

No. 09-5080

September Term 2009

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief be denied. The movants have not demonstrated “why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case,” as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(b). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for oral argument be denied. The court will dispose of the appeals without oral argument on the basis of the record and the presentations in the briefs. The court has determined that oral argument will not assist it in this case. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Per Curiam

Page 2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful