
    Jeanne Abigail CUSTIS, Appellant v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Appellees.
    No. 15-5234
    September Term, 2015
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: June 20, 2016
    Jeanne Abigail Custis, Berryville, VA, Pro Se.
    Elizabeth Trosman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Appellate Division, Washington, DC, for Respondents-Appellees.
    
      BEFORE: Rogers and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges; 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 appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motions to appoint counsel,' and the letter filed by appellant, it is ORDERED that the motions to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 30, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.  