the burden of establishing all elements of her entitlement. See, e.g., Shultz, 8 F.3d at 850. Mullins must therefore demonstrate that her attorneys charged a reasonable rate and that the time they expended on her representation was reasonable. See In re North (Gardner Fee Application), 30 F.3d 143, 146 (D.C.Cir.1994) (per curiam). Based on the affidavits and other exhibits submitted by Mullins, we conclude that the hourly rates charged by her attorneys ($90 — $295) comport with prevailing community standards and are within the realm of reasonableness. Id. We also conclude that she has, for the most part, provided adequate descriptions and documentation of the work performed. See National Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319,1327 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Mullins submits numerous monthly bills for
holding that a fee application must contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done holding all contracts contain an implied term that the the person for whom the work is contracted to be done will not obstruct hinder or delay the contractor holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work holding that the officer played no role in the prosecution because the police report provided to the prosecutor did not contain false information