did so after Mr. Wilson’s appeal, his complaint that they failed to do so immediately, however justified, is now moot. 2. Scope of the Request Mr. Wilson further argues that the FHWA made an “unreasonable and unilateral assumption that the Plaintiff requested only ‘formal’ complaints.” Opp’n at 8. The FOIA Appeals Official determined that the FHWA’s interpretation that Mr. Wilson was seeking formal complaints, instead of informal records such as counseling logs, was “more than reasonable.” Nov. 20, 2009 Final Agency Decision at 2. An agency may decide to limit the scope of an ambiguous request as long as the narrowed scope is a reasonable interpretation of what the request seeks. See, e.g., Mogenhan v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 06-2045, 2007 WL 2007502, at *3 (D.D.C. July 10, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Adamowicz v. IRS, 552 F.Supp.2d 355, 362
holding that counsels failure to file appeal was not deficient performance under strickland where the petitioner in  2255 action did not direct counsel to file an appeal and acquiesced in counsels decision to pursue as an alternative a reduction in sentence holding that extraordinary circumstances did not include the mere neglect of the professional who was in a position to file a timely application holding that it is proper to dismiss an appellants appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension within the time allotted by the bankruptcy rules holding reasonable an agency determination that a request for an investigative file did not include the employment file holding defendant did not waive issues by failing to file posttrial motions where defendant did file petition for reconsideration which was intended to function as posttrial motion