can be no doubt that all the issues presented in the parties’ procedural motions have been aired and fully considered. 1 . Judge Randolph also implies the panel ignored the provisions of the DoD Regulations that define the “Record of Proceedings” before the CSRT, namely, E-2 § C(8) & (10). In fact, the panel not only epitomized both E-2 § C(8) and E-2 § C(10), see Bismullah I, 501 F.3d at 182; see also Bismullah II, 503 F.3d at 139 (citing E-2 § C(8)), it expressly rejected the Government’s contention that the Record of Proceedings constitutes the record on review for reasons stated in the panel’s two opinions. See Bismullah I, 501 F.3d at 184-86; Bismullah II, 503 F.3d at 139-41. 2 . See W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 88-92, 100-01, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Judge Randolph says 5 U.S.C. § 551 also
holding attorneys fees and expert fees distinct for purposes of 42 usc  1988 because if  the one includes the other dozens of statutes referring to the two separately become an inexplicable exercise in redundancy holding defendant may receive only the portion of his fees under 42 usc  1988 that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim holding that the district court abused its discretion by telling the jury about the right of a prevailing plaintiff to attorney fees under 42 usc  1988 holding that 42 usc  1988 authorizes the grant of attorneys fees for services on appeal though statute does not specifically so provide holding that a case awarding fees under 42 usc  1988 has no application in a private claim for attorneys fees sounding in mississippi contract law