Accipiter Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, No. 12-1258 (D.C. Cir.)
USCA Case #12-1258 Document #1408664 Filed: 12/06/2012 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals
Accipiter Communications, Inc.,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America,
Respondents
administrative record, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion to strike, or in
the alternative for leave to file a surreply, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
underlying Transformation Order cannot be fairly inferred from the petition for review
and the contemporaneous filings. Entravision Holdings, LLC v. FCC, 202 F.3d 311, 313
(D.C. Cir. 2000). To the extent the petitioner seeks review of the order denying in part
reconsideration, it is well-established that denials of petitions for reconsideration are
unreviewable except insofar as the request for reconsideration is based upon new
evidence or changed circumstances. See id. Petitioner has not shown that the portion
of its petition for reconsideration that was denied was based on new evidence or
changed circumstances. It is
the administrative record be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________No. 12-1258
September Term, 2012
FCC-12-52
Filed On:
December 6, 2012Accipiter Communications, Inc.,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America,
Respondents
BEFORE:
Garland, Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit JudgesO R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss and to defer filing of theadministrative record, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion to strike, or in
the alternative for leave to file a surreply, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED
that the motion to dismiss be granted. An intent to challenge theunderlying Transformation Order cannot be fairly inferred from the petition for review
and the contemporaneous filings. Entravision Holdings, LLC v. FCC, 202 F.3d 311, 313
(D.C. Cir. 2000). To the extent the petitioner seeks review of the order denying in part
reconsideration, it is well-established that denials of petitions for reconsideration are
unreviewable except insofar as the request for reconsideration is based upon new
evidence or changed circumstances. See id. Petitioner has not shown that the portion
of its petition for reconsideration that was denied was based on new evidence or
changed circumstances. It is
FURTHER ORDERED
that the motion to strike and the motion to defer filing ofthe administrative record be dismissed as moot.
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
Note: 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.
