Larry Starks, Jr. v. United States Sentencing Commission ( 2022 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 21-5281 September Term, 2021
1:21-cv-02422-UNA
Filed On: June 15, 2022
Larry E. Starks, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
United States Sentencing Commission and
United States of America,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge
JUDGMENT
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. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s September 27, 2021
dismissal order and November 30, 2021 order denying the motion to alter or amend the
judgment be affirmed. The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of
jurisdiction. C&E Servs., Inc. of Washington v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 310 F.3d
197, 201 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
waives sovereign immunity only for challenges to a “final agency action for which there
is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. The Sentencing
Commission’s action does not constitute an agency action because the Sentencing
Commission is not an “agency” within the meaning of the APA. See Wash. Legal
Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 17 F.3d 1446, 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 21-5281 September Term, 2021
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
Page 2