### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 13, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16729

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 1 5 2 5 - C V- OR L - 2 2 J GG JO H N D O E , I, J E N N E T T E B E N N E T T - S E A C R E S T , e t a l., P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , v ersu s F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , M A R I O N C . B L A K E Y , F e d e r a l A v ia tio n A d m in is tr a to r , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , W IL S O N an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C O X , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

T h e Fe d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d mi n i s tr a t i o n ( “ th e FA A ” ) a n d i t s A d mi n i s tr a t or appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ord e rgr a nt i ng a pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on. W e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha d no s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on a nd the r e f o re va c a t e the i nj unc t i on and rem and t he ac t i on w i th i nstruct io n s t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f s ubj ec t -m att er j ur i s di c t i on. I . F AC T UA L B AC KG RO UN D A ND P RO CE DU RA L HI S T OR Y T he P l ai nt i ff

s a re th irteen ai rc ra ftm ec hani cs w ho w er e i ss ued ai rm en c e r t i f i c a t e s pur s ua ntt o pow ers gr a nt e d by C ongr e s s t o the F A A . 49 U . S . C . §§ 44 70 2, 44 70 3. A ft eran i nv es t i gat i on re veal ed (a nd a s ub se qu entcr i m i nal tri al confi rm ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt ) thatthe sc ho ol fr o m w h ich the P l ai nt i ff s r e c e i v e d th e i r a i r m e n c e r t i f i c a t e s f r a u d u l e n t l y e x a mi n e d a n d c e r t i f i e d s o me appl i ca nt s f

or tho se ce rt ificates , the F A A concl ud ed thatthe exi st ence of ai rc ra ft m ec hani cs un qu al i fi ed t o hol d c er t i fi ca t es and per form ai rc ra ft m ai nt en an ce p o se d a s e r i o u s t h reat t o a i rs a f e ty . T he F A A w a s una bl e t o de t e r m i ne w hi c h of the m ec hani cs w ho re ce i ved t hei r c ert i fi ca t es fr om the i m pl i ca ted sc ho ol had b ee n f r a udul e nt l y c e r t i f

i e d. T he r e f

or e , the F A A w r ot e l et t e r s t o the P l a i nt i f f s ( a nd appr oxi m a t e l y 2, 000 othe r m e c ha ni c s w ho ha d be e n c e r t i f i e d a t the s ch o o l d u ri ng the re l evantt i m e per i od ) s t at i ng thatre exam i nat i on of thei r a i rm en com pet ency w a s ne c e s s a r y unde r49 U . S . C . § 44709. T he F A A t ook n o act i o n t o s us pe nd or3

r e voke the m e c ha ni c s ’ c e r t i f i c a t e s . R a the rth an su b m i tt i ng t o r e e xa m i na t i on or r e f u s in g r e e x a m in a tio n , th e r e b y r is k in g a n F A A o r d e rs u s p e n d in g o rr e v o k in g th e ir c e r tif ic a te s , th e P la in tif

f s f ile d th is a c tio n in f

e d e r a l d is t r i c t c o u r t a n d s o u g h t a pr e l i m i na r y i n

j u n ct i o n i ns truc t i ng the F A A how t o pr oc e e d i n i t s pr oc e s s of r e e xa m i na t i on. T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d th e r e q u e s t e d i n j u n c t i o n . I tp r e v e n t s th e F AA f r o m r e e x a m in in g th e m e c h a n ic s o n a n e m e r g e n c y b a s is p u r s u a n t to 4 9 U .S .C . § 44 70 9; re qu i re s the F A A t o sho w cause f or re exam i ni ng ea ch i nd i vi du al m ec hani c; and requi re s th e F A A t o p rovi de ea ch m ec hani c w i th an o pp ortun i ty t o b e hea rd as t o w hy he s houl d notha ve t o s ubm i tt o r e e xa m i na t i on. I I . CO NT E NT I ON S OF T HE P AR T I E S AN D I S S UE S ON AP P E AL T h e F A A c h a lle n g e s th e d i s t r ic t c o u r t’s in ju n c tio n o n tw o g r o u n d s . F ir s t, it c ont e nds tha tthe di s tri ct co u r tl a c ke d s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on t o he a rthe m e c h a n ic s ’ c a s e . S e c o n d , it c o n te n d s th a t, e v e n if th e d is tr ic t c o u r th a d s u b je c tm a tt e rj u r i s d i c t i o n , i te r r e d i n g r a n t i n g th e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . T h e F AA a r gue s tha tC ongr e s s ha s est ab l i s he d by s t a tut e a c om pr e he ns i ve a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s c he m e f

orr e s ol ut i on of

di s put e s be tw e e n a i r m e n an d t h e F A A a nd tha tthe s t a tut or y s c he m e de ni e s the di s tr i ctc our tj ur i s di c t i on t o r e s ol ve the s e s or t s of d is p u te s . See 49 U . S . C . § 44709. T he P l a i nt i f f m e c han i cs m ai nt a i n tha tthe4

st atut ory s chem e the F A A re l i es up on i s i napp l i cab le i n a ca se l i ke thi s, w here they b r o u g h t s u i t b e f

o r e th e F A A h a d ta k e n a n y a c tio n to s u s p e n d o rr e v o k e th e ir l i c e ns e s a nd w he r e the y a l l e ge tha tthe i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s w ou l d be of f e nde d by the F A A ’ s pl a nne d r e e xa m i na t i on. I I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW W e r e v ie w q u e s tio n s o f s u b je c t- m a tte r ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . S ee Mi lan E xpre ss , Inc. v. A ve ri t t

E xpre ss , Inc. , 2 0 8 F .3 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i si o n t o gr a nta pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on i s r e vi e w e d f or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n , b u t its ap p lic a tio n o f la w is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . J ohns on & John son V

isi on C are, Inc. v. 1-80 0 C on tact s, Inc. , 29 9 F. 3d 12 42 , 12 46 ( 11 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . I V . DI S CUS S I ON T he out c om e of

thi s c a s e i s di c t a t e d by S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de n ttha tthe part i es never ci t ed t o t he di stri ctcourtthati ss ued t he i nj un ct i on . T he fact s her e a re s o s i mi l a rt o th o s e i n T h u nd erB asi n C oa l

C o. v. R ei ch , 5 1 0 U .S . 2 0 0 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 77 1 (19 94 ), thatre vi ew of thatca se i s i nstruct i ve. I n T h u n de rB a s in , the S upr e m e C our te xa m i ne d the F e de ral M i n e S a f e ty a nd H e a lth A c t, 3 0 U .S .C . § 8 0 1 e t s e q ., ( “M in e A c t ” ) t o d e te r m in e w h e th e rit p r e v e n ts a di s tr i c tc our tf

r om e xe r c i s i ng s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on ove ra pr e - e nfo rce m e nt5

c h a l le n g e to M in e S a f

e ty a n d H e a lth A d m in is tr a tio n ( M S H A ) a c tio n s p u r s u a n t to th e M i n e A ct . 5 1 0 U . S . at 2 0 2 , 1 1 4 S . C t. a t 7 7 4 . A m in e o p e r a to rf ile d s u it in d istrict co u rt b ef

o re M S H A to o k an y e n fo rc em en t actio n ag ain st it ; th e o p er ato r’s l a w s ui tr e que s t e d a n i nj unc t i on pr e ve nt i ng M S H A f r om r e qui r i ng the m i ne o p erat o r t o p o st a n o t i ce at i t s b u s in e s s . I d. a t 2 0 5 , 1 1 4 S . C t. a t 7 7 5 . W h ile a c k n o w l e d g i n g th a tth e M i ne A c tp r o v i d e d a c o mp r e h e n s i v e s t a tu t o r y s c h e me prescri b i ng a pr oc e s s thr ough w hi c h the m i ne ope r a t orc oul d c ha l l e nge the a c t s of M S H A , th e o p e r a to r a lle g e d th a t r e q u ir in g it to c o m p ly w ith th a t p r o c e s s w o u ld c a u s e th e o p e r a t o r i r r e p a r a b le h a r m a n d v io la te its d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . I d. , 1 1 4 S. C t. a t 7 7 5 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th e in ju n c tio n . I

d. at20 5 -0 6 , 1 1 4 S . C t. at 775- 76 . T h e C our tof

A ppe a l s f

orthe T e nth C i r c ui tr e ve r s e d, f i ndi ng tha tthe M i ne A ct ’ s c om prehensi ve adm ini stra t i ve-r evi ew sc hem e pre cl ud ed di stri ctcourt ju r is d ic tio n o v e r t h e m i n e o p e r a to r ’s c la im s . I d. a t206, 114 S . C t . a t776. T he Supr e me Court a f

f i r me d the Te nth Ci r c ui t , ho l di ng tha t be c a us e the M i ne A ct

“ est ab l i sh es a d et ai l ed stru ctu re fo r rev i ew i n g v i o l at i o n s o f [th e M i n e ] A c t,” ( i nc l udi ng r e vi e w b y an a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge , the F e de r a l M i ne S a f e ty a nd H ea l th R evi ew C om m i ss i on , and a feder al courtof ap peal s) and b ec ause that s t a tut or y s c he m e a l l oc a t e d i ni t i a l r e vi e w t o an ad m i ni s tr a t i ve body ( r a the rtha n a f e d e r a l d i s tr i c t c o u r t ) , th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t h a d n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s t he m i ne6

o p e r a to r ’s c o m p la in t. I d. at20 7, 21 8, 11 4 S . C t . at 7 7 6 , 7 8 2 . T he C ou rt r e c ogni z e d tha tthe M i ne A c tw a s f a c i a l l y s i l e ntw i th r e s pe c tt o pr e - e nf or c e m e nt c la im s b u t h el d th at th e stru ctu re o f th e act d em o n strat ed th at C o n g ress i n t en d ed to p r e c lu d e c h a lle n g e s to th e M in e A c t’s e n f o r c e m e n t in d is tr ic t c o u r t. I d. a t208, 114 S . C t . a t777. T he s t a tut or y a dm i ni s tr a t i ve - r e vi e w s c he m e a t i s s ue i n thi s case funct i ons ve r y m uc h l i ke tha te s t a bl i s he d b y t h e M i n e A c t . T he s t a tut e i n que s t i on, 49 U. S . C . § § 4 4 7 0 1 - 4 4 7 2 3 ( “ th e F AA Ac t ” o r“ th e F AA S t a tu t e ” ) , c h a r g e s t h e F AA w i th pr e s c r i bi ng a i rs a f e ty s t a nda r ds , i nc l udi ng c e r t i f i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s f or ( a m o n g o th e r s ) a irp o r ts , a ir lin e s , a i rp la n e s , a n d a ir c r a f t p ilo ts a n d m e c h a n ic s to “p r o m o t e s a f

e f lig h t o f c iv il a ir c r a f

t in a irc o m m e r c e .” 4 9 U .S .C . § 4 4 7 0 1 ( a ) ; se e al s o 49 U . S . C . §§ 4 4 7 0 2 -4 4 7 06 . P ursuantt o i t s autho ri ty und erthe F A A S t atut e, th e F A A m a y r e e x a m in e a n a i r m a n a l r e a d y h o ld in g a c e r tif ic a te . 4 9 U .S .C . § 44 70 9(a) . A ft ertha t r eexam i nat i on or “ [a n] other i nv es t i gat i on , ” the F A A m ay or de r , i n the i nt e r e s t o f s a f e ty , tha ta n a i r m a n’ s c e r t i f i c a t e be a m e nde d, m odi f i e d, s us pe nde d orr e vo ke d. 49 U . S . C . § 44709( b) . A n a i r m a n a dve r s e l y a f f e c t e d by such an order has ari gh tt o app ea l t o the N at i on al T ra nspo rt at i on S af ety B oard (N T S B ) a nd , subsequent l y, t o a fe dera l courtof appeal s. 49 U . S . C . § 4 4 70 9(d), (f ). I f th e FA A h a s d e t e r mi n e d th a t a n e me r g e n c y e x i s t s , i t s o r d e r o f c e r t i f i c a t e a c t i on7

t a ke s e f f e c ti m m e di a t e l y a nd the a f f e c t e d a i r m a n i s ent i t l e d t o f i na l di s pos i t i on of h is N T S B ap p e a l w ith in s ix ty d a y s . 4 9 U . S . C . § 4 4 7 0 9 ( e ) . I f n o e m e r g e n c y is de s i gna t e d, the F A A ’ s or de rof c e r t i f i c a t e a c t i on i s s t a y e d p en d i n g the r e s ol ut i on of a n y N T S B ap p e a l. I

d. L ik e th e M in e A c t, th e F A A S ta tu te is s il e n t w i t h r e g a r d to j ud i ci al re vi ew of pre- enforce m entac t i on s ( l aw sui t s broug htb ef o re an F A A order of ce rt i fi ca t e a ct i on ). T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e th a t th e F A A h a s th e p o w e rto r e e x a m in e a ir m e n a n d to s u s p e n d a n d r e v o k e th e irc e r tif ic a te s . T h e y a ls o a g r e e th a t th e N T S B is i nd ependentof th e F A A . A n d, the m ec hani cs do no tt ake i ss ue w i th t he fa ctthat th e N T S B is b o th u n iq u e ly s u ite d a n d d e s ig n a te d b y s ta tu te a s th e s o le e n tity to c ons i de ra n ai rm an ’ s i ni t i a l c ha l l e nge t o F A A c e r t i f i c a t e a c t i on. R a the r , the m ech an i cs co n t en d th a t th ey n eed n o tsu b m i tt o th e ad m i n i strat i v e-rev i ew p ro cess b e c a u s e th e F A A h a s n o t y e t ta k e n a n y c e r tif ic a te a c tio n a n d , f

u r th e r , th a t to r e qui r e the m t o w a i t fo r s uc h a c t i on a nd the n pur s ue the i rc l a i m s thr ough the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve appe a l pr oc e s s w oul d c a us e i r r e pa r a bl e ha r m a nd de pr i ve t h em of th e ird u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . F i rs t , w e a dd r e s s the me c ha ni c s ’ c l a i m tha tthe s t a tut or i l y pr e s c r i bed adm i ni stra t i ve-r evi ew proces s i s i napp l i cabl e bec ause thei r l aw sui tw as fi l ed before the F A A t ook a ny c e r t i f i c a t e a c t i on. T hi s a r gum e nti s m e r i t l e s s . I f , i ns t e a d ofI f t heF AAdid

no t order a

ny a c tio n o n a

me c ha nic ’s air man c e rtif

ic ate , n o right to 1 appeal to the NTSB would vest. See49 U.S.C. § 44709(d)(1) ( grantingright to appeal to “[a] person adverse ly

aff ecte d by an order of the [FAA] under this section . . . .”).

8 f ilin g th e ir la w s u it in d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e m e c h a n ic s h a d e ith e r : ( 1 ) r e f u s e d t o s u b m it to r e e x a m in a tio n , o r( 2 ) s u b m itte d to a n d f a i l e d r e e x a m in a tio n , th e F A A c o u ld have: (1) det erm i ned t hata s af ety e m er gency ex isted and i ss ued an o rder suspendi ng or re vo ki ng the m ec hanics ’ cert i fi ca t es i m m edi at el y, or (2) i ss ued an order not i fy i ng the m ec hani cs of the re as o n s fo r it s con ce rn and p rovi ded t hem w i th oppor tuni t i e s t o be h eard b y t he N T S B a s t o w hy the i rc e r t i f i c a t e s s houl d not be s us p e n d e d o rr e v o k e d . 4 9 U . S. C. § 4 4 7 0 9 ( b ) , ( c ) . On c e o n e o f th e s e FA A or de r s w a s i s s ue d, the m e c ha ni c s ’ r i ght s t o appe a l t o the N T S B w oul d ha ve ve s t e d; a nd the m e c ha ni c s c oul d obt a i n j udi c i a l r e vi e w o f an y N T S B or de ri n the a ppr opr i a t e f

e d e r a l c o u r to f

ap p e a l s . 4 9 U . S. C. § 4 4 7 0 9 ( d ) , ( e ) , ( f ) . T he 1 m ec hani cs si m pl y c anno tavoi d t he st atutori l y e st abl i shed adm i ni stra t i ve-r evi ew pr oc e s s by rus hi ng t o the f e de r a l c ou r tho us e f

or a n i nj un c t i on pr e ve nt i ng the very a c t i on tha tw oul d s e tt h e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve - r e vi e w pr oc e s s i n m ot i on. A s w i th the M i ne A ct , “ [t ] o u ph ol d t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’ s j uri sdi ct io n in th es e c i rc um st ance s w ou l d b e i ni m i ca l t o t he structure a nd the pu rp ose” of the st atut ory s chem e. T h u n de rB a s in , 5 1 0 U .S . a t 2 1 6 , 1 1 4 S . C t. a t 7 8 1 .9

T he m ec hani cs ’ se cond ar gu m ent–thatthei r a l l egat i on of a c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on re m ov es thei r c om pl ai ntfr om the pu rvi ew of the st atut ory r evi ew sc hem e–al so fa i l s. B ot h thi s co u rt and t he S up re m e C ou rthave al re ady r ej ec t ed th is a r g u m e n t. See T

h u n de rB a s in , 5 1 0 U .S . a t 2 1 5 , 1 1 4 S . C t . a t 7 8 0 ; G re en v. B rant l ey , 9 8 1 F .2 d 5 1 4 , 5 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . I n G re en , th e p l a i n t i f

f wa s a De s i g n a t e d P i l o tE x a m i n e rwh o h e l d a F AA c e r tif ic a te . G re en , 98 1 F . 2d at51 6. W hen t he F A A ca ncel l ed G re en’ s c ert i fi ca t e, he f i l e d s ui ti n t h e fed era l di s tr i c tc our ts e e ki ng r e c ove r y f orc ons t i tut i ona l t or t s he a lle g e d w e r e c o m m itte d in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e c e r tif ic a te te r m in a tio n . I

d . a t518. T hi s c ou r tf

ou nd tha tthe me r i t s of G r e e n’ s c on s t i tut i on a l a r gu me nt s w e re

“ i ne s c apa bl y i nt e r tw i ne d w i th a r e vi e w o f t h e pr oc e dur e s a nd m e r i t s s ur r oundi ng the F A A ’ s order . ” G re en , 9 8 1 F . 2d a t521. B e c a us e the s t a tut e tha ta uthor i z e d the F A A a c tio n o n G r e e n ’s c e r tif ic a te ( th e p r e d e c e s s o rto th e s ta tu te a t is s u e in th is c a s e ) pr ovi de d f

orN T S B re vi e w of

the F A A ’ s or de rw i th a r i ghtt o appe a l t o a fe dera l courtof appeal s, G re en’ s s ui ti n federa l di stri ctco u rt w as hel d t o b e a n im p e r m is s ib le c o lla te r a l c h a lle n g e to th e a g e n c y ’s a c tio n . I d . T he r e f

or e , the d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n o v e rG r e e n ’s s u it. I d. T h e s a m e i s tru e h e r e . T h e m e c h a n i c s ’ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m s ( th a tth e F AA ha s i nf r i nge d upon the i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s by f a i l i ng t o obs e r ve s t a tut or y a nd10

a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e s s e s ) ne c e s s a r i l y r e qui r e a r e vi e w of the pr oc e dur e s a nd a c t i ons t a ke n by the F A A w i th r e ga r d t o the m e c ha ni c s ’ c e r t i f i c a t es. T h erefo r e , the c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s f

a l l w i thi n the a m bi tof the a dm i ni s tr a t i v e sch em e, a nd the d is tr ic t c o u r t is w ith o u t s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . T he N T S B , aC on gres si on al l y des i gn at ed i nd ependentcom m i ss i on , ca n addres s the m ec hani cs ’ con stitu ti o n al concerns duri ng i t s r evi ew of any F A A order. Se e T h u n de rB a s in , 51 0 U . S . at2 1 5 , 1 14 S . C t . at78 0 (ho l di ng that , w here re vi ew i ng bo dy i s notthe agen cy i t se l f butan i nd ependentcom m i ss i on , i tm ay addres s c o n st i tut i on al qu es t i on s) . A nd a m ec hani c i s guara nt ee d a ri gh tt o app ea l th e N T S B ’s d e c is io n to th e f e d e r a l c o u r t o f

ap p e a ls . 4 9 U .S .C . § 4 4 7 0 9 ( f ) . I t is true thatthe F A A S t atut e ( l i ke the M i ne A ct ) provi des for del ay ed j ud i ci al re vi ew ( tha ti s , r e vi e w by a f e de r a l c our tof

appe a l s a f

t e ra de t erm i na t i on by the adm i ni stra t i ve co m m issi on ra ther than i ni t i al re vi ew by a f eder al di stri ctcourt ). I d. ; T h u n de rB a s in , 51 0 U . S . at21 5, 11 4 S . C t . at78 0 . H o w ev er , the st atut ory s c h e me d o e s n o t d e p r i v e th e me c h a n i c s o f a l l f e d e r a l c o u r t r e v i e w o f t he i r due p ro ce ss al l egat i on s. T hu s, cont ra ry t o the m ec hani cs ’ cont ent i on , thi s c as e “ do es no tpres entthe ‘ se ri ou s c on st i tut i on al qu es t i on ’ thatw ou l d ari se if an agency s ta tu te w e r e c o n s tru e d to p r e c lu d e a ll ju d ic i a l r e v i e w o f a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im .” T h u n de rB a s in , 510 U . S . a t215, n. 20, 114 S . C t . a t 780, n. 20 ( quot i ng B ow en v.11

Mi c hi gan A c ade my of

Fam i l y P hys i c i ans , 4 7 6 U .S . 6 6 7 , 6 8 1 , n . 1 2 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 21 33 , 21 41 , n. 12 (198 6)). V . CONCL US I ON W e c o n c lu d e th a t Th u n de rB as i n an d G re en cont rol thi s c as e a nd there fore va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ord er a nd r e m a nd the a c t i on w i th i ns truc t i ons tha ti tbe d is m i ssed fo r l ack o f su b j ect -m att er j u ri sd i ct i o n . B ecau se w e reso l v e th i s d is p u te on j uri sdi ct i on al grou nd s, w e do n otaddres s the F A A ’ s c l ai m th at th e d is tri ctcourt e r r e d by m i s appl y i ng the l e ga l s t a nda r ds f ori s s ua nc e of

a pr e l i m i na r y i nj unc t i on. V A CA TED A N D REM A N D ED W I TH I N STRU CTI O N S.