Slinger Drainage, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency , 244 F.3d 967 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Filed April 13, 2001
    No. 99-1433
    Slinger Drainage, Inc.,
    Petitioner
    v.
    Environmental Protection Agency,
    Respondent
    On Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing
    ---------
    Before:  Edwards, Chief Judge, Sentelle and Randolph,
    Circuit Judges.
    O R D E R
    Upon consideration of petitioner's petition for rehearing, it
    is
    ORDERED that the petition be denied for the reasons
    stated in the attached memorandum.
    Per Curiam
    FOR THE COURT:
    Mark J. Langer, Clerk
    M E M O R A N D U M
    Slinger Drainage, Inc.'s petition for rehearing is meritless.
    Petitioner claims that our published decision in this case,
    Slinger Drainage, Inc. v. EPA, 
    237 F.3d 681
    (D.C. Cir. 2001),
    is inconsistent with the court's decision in United States v.
    Carver, 
    671 F.2d 577
    (D.C. Cir. 1982).  This claim is misguid-
    ed.  Carver involved our consideration of Fed. R. Crim. P.
    6(g), which states that "no grand jury may serve more than
    18 months."  We held that this provision should be interpret-
    ed in light of Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a), which requires that "[i]n
    computing any period of time the day of the act or event from
    which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be
    included."  Carver did not address the situation presented
    here--a statutory judicial review provision in which Congress
    has mandated a particular method of counting.
    Petitioner also points to this court's disposition in National
    Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1300 v. Federal
    Labor Relations Authority, No. 85-1541 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 6,
    1985) ("NFFE"), as grounds for rehearing.  The court's
    unpublished order in NFFE merely states that "Appellant
    filed a timely petition for review.  See Fed. R. App. P. 26 (a)."
    Obviously, this provides no basis for rehearing.  More impor-
    tantly, however, under D.C. Cir. R. 28(c), "[u]npublished
    orders or judgments of this court ... are not to be cited as
    precedent."  Accordingly, the judgment in NFFE is not
    binding precedent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1433

Citation Numbers: 244 F.3d 967, 345 U.S. App. D.C. 287, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6592

Judges: Edwards, Harry, Per Curiam, Randolph, Sentelle

Filed Date: 4/13/2001

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024