
    Russell Dan SMITH, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Appellee.
    No. 10-5146.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    July 21, 2010.
    
      Russell Dan Smith, Aiken, SC, pro se.
    BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
   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 and appendix filed by the appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 20, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly denied appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed the action, because appellant did not show a “clear and indisputable right” to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). To the extent appellant argues he is not seeking mandamus relief, appellant provides no other basis for the court to compel the appellee to act.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.  