United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 12-1169 September Term 2011
FCC-12-26
Filed On: August 8, 2012
Warren C. Havens,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Communications Commission and
United States of America,
Respondents
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion to hold in abeyance, the response thereto, and
the reply; and the motion to dismiss, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion to hold in abeyance be denied.  It is
 
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted.  Because of the
pendency of petitioner’s request for administrative reconsideration, the agency order
petitioner challenges is not a final reviewable order with respect to petitioner, and his
petition for review is incurably premature.  See Wade v. FCC, 986 F.2d 1433, 1434
(D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); TeleSTAR, Inc. v. FCC, 888 F.2d 132, 134 (D.C. Cir.
1989); United Transp. Union v. ICC, 871 F.2d 1114, 1116-18 (D.C. Cir. 1989).  Once
the agency rules on petitioner’s request for administrative reconsideration, whether by
granting or denying it on the merits or by denying petitioner permission to file the 
administrative reconsideration, the agency order(s) become “final” and petitioner may
seek review.
  
 Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 
USCA Case #12-1169      Document #1388157            Filed: 08/08/2012      Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 12-1169 September Term 2011
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
2
USCA Case #12-1169      Document #1388157            Filed: 08/08/2012      Page 2 of 2