was adequate is unaffected by the FCC’s delay in entering the Joint Parties’ counterproposal into its database or otherwise making it public. Under the FCC’s cutoff rule, Crawford was precluded from filing his Mason proposal after the close of the Qua-nah initial comment period because the Joint Parties had s mistaken, but short-lived, docketing of his Mason proposal. As we have held in a similar factual setting, “an agency’s failure to follow its own regulations is fatal to the deviant action.” Florida Inst. of Technology, 952 F.2d at 553 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the FCC’s erroneous docketing of the Mason proposal did not give Crawford any “rights he would not otherwise enjoy.” Id.; see also 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 202 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Nor did Crawford detrimentally rely on the
recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that procedural sentencing error is harmless if the resulting sentence is not longer thanthat to which the defendant would otherwise be subject alterations and internal quotation marks omitted holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted holding that the petitioner may not turn a clerical error into a windfall of rights it would not otherwise enjoy internal quotation marks omitted