
    Jean Paul GAMARRA, Appellant v. Hillary Rodham CLINTON, Appellee
    No. 16-5323
    September Term, 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: January 25, 2017
    Jean Paul Gamarra, Pro Se.
    R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    BEFORE: Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
   JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant on November 15, 2016, and the supplement thereto. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the notices filed by appellant, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered October 6, 2016 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.  