
    David KISSI, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Appellee.
    No. 11-5167.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Dec. 28, 2011.
    David Kissi, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Robert Evans Kopp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    BEFORE: GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, 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 the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 23, 2011, be affirmed. Despite appellant’s assertion to the contrary, the district court issued a memorandum opinion in support of the dismissal order on June 23, 2011. Appellant has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 1957 do not provide a private cause of action. See Cent. Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 190-91, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994) (refusing to infer a private right of action from a “bare criminal statute”); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Widnall, 57 F.3d 1162, 1164 (D.C.Cir.1995). Nor has appellant shown that the district court was required to hold a hearing or make findings of fact before dismissing the complaint.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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