Per Curiam.
Upon consideration of the trust account report and the consent to collection of fees, it is.
ORDERED that, pursuant to appellant's consent to collection of fees, appellant's custodian is directed to pay on appellant's behalf the initial partial filing fee of $9.36, to be withheld from appellant's trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The payment must be by check or money order made payable to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Appellant's custodian also is directed to collect and pay from appellant's trust account monthly installments of 20 per cent of the previous month's income credited to appellant's account, until the full $455 docketing fee has been paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Such payments must be made each month the amount in the account exceeds $10 and must be designated as made in payment of the filing fee for Case No. 07-5001, an appeal from Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-01128. A copy of this order must accompany each remittance. In the event appellant is transferred to another institution, the balance due must be collected and paid to the Clerk by the custodian at appellant's next institution. Appellant's custodian must notify the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the event appellant is released from custody.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to appellant, by whatever means necessary to ensure receipt, and to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Clerk is further directed to send to appellant's custodian a copy of this order and appellant's consent to collection of fees.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, the motion for summary affirmance, and the motion for summary reversal, it is.
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal 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 that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. 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). Appellant has forfeited his request for an "award" in connection with the agency's failure to comply with the time limitations under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, because he did not submit the request to the district court in the first instance. See, e.g.,Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 364 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In any event, the agency's failure to comply with the time limitations does not entitle appellant to a damages award.See Sinito v. DOJ, 176 F.3d 512, 514 (D.C. Cir. 1999); see also Johnson v. EOUSA, 310 F.3d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002). As to the adequacy of the agency's search, the agency is required under FOIA to make "a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods reasonably expected to produce the information requested." Oglesby v. United States Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990). As the district court concluded, the appellee has met its burden of showing it complied with FOIA by providing "a reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched." Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68).
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.