Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01433/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01433-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Slinger Drainage, Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

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

USCA Case #99-1433 Document #589608 Filed: 04/13/2001 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

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 misguided. 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 interpreted 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unpublished order in NFFE merely states that "Appellant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 importantly, 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.

USCA Case #99-1433 Document #589608 Filed: 04/13/2001 Page 2 of 2