A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re (c o n tin u e d ...) FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 6, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D KE E T OOWAH B AND OF C H E R O K E E IN D IA N S IN OKL AHOMA,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , ex r el . G al e A . N or t on, Secr et aryof t h e I n t e r i o r ; P HI L I P N. HOGE N, C hai r m an of N at i onal I ndi an G ami ng C om m i s s i on,

D efen dan t s, and S T A T E O F O K L A H O M A , ex re l. T i m K uykendal l , D i s t r i ctA t t or ney D istri ct 21 , S p ec ial P rose cu tor,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. T HE CH E RO KE E NAT I ON,

A m i cus C ur i ae. N o. 06- 7033 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 3 4 0 - R A W) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *( . . . cont i nued) * or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. -2- B efor e P O R F IL IO , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

T he St at e of O kl ahoma appeal s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or ders et t i ng as i de a fi nal deci s i on of the N at i onal I ndi an G ami ng C om m i s s i on ( C om m i s s i on) and r emandi ng t o t he C om m i s s i on forfur therpr ocee di ngs . I n the s ame or dert he di s t r i ctcourtal s o deni ed as m oott he St at e’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on and not ed t h a ta p r e l i m i n a r yi nj u n c t i o n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s t a tu s q u o r e m a i n e d i n e ffe c t . We d ism iss th e a p p ea l fo r l ac k o f ju ri sd ict ion b ec au se th e o rde r i s n o t a fina l ord er. I . Backgr ound T hi s act i on i nvol ves a di s put e betw een the U ni t ed K eet oow ah B and of C her okee I ndi ans i n O kl ahoma ( U K B ) , t he U ni t ed St at es , and O kl ahoma, re g a rd in g w h e th e r U K B c a n leg a llyo p e ra te a g a m in g fa c ili tyo n c e rta in lan d in T ahl equah, O kl ahoma ( L and) . U K B as s er t s t hatt he Land i s “I ndi an l and” a s defi ned byt he I ndi an G ami ng R egul at oryA ct( I G R A ) , 25 U . S. C . § 2703( 4) , and i s t her efor e s ubj ectt o r egul at i on byt he C om m i s s i on. U K B began ope r at i ng a gami ng fac i l i t yon the Land atl eas tas ear l yas 1991 and the C om m i s s i on began r egul at i ng t hos e gami ng oper at i ons begi nni ng as ear l yas 1993. B uti n Sept ember-3-

2000, t he C om m i s s i on i nform ed U K B byl et t erthati thad r eac hed the conc l us i on th a t th e L a n d is n o t “I n d ian lan d ” a n d th e re fo re th e IG R A d o e s n o t ap p lyto U K B ’ s gami ng oper at i ons . C ons equent l y , the C om m i s s i on cea s ed al l r egul at i on of those op erat i on s. O k laho m a the n info rm ed U K B that it s g am ing o p era ti o n s o n the L an d w ere i n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw , w hi ch i ti nt ended t o enfor ce a gai ns tU K B . U K B fi l ed a d ec laratoryjud g m en t acti o n ag ains t O k laho m a in s tat e c o u rt . T h e state c o u rt enj oi ned O kl ahoma fr om enfor ci ng i t s l aw s agai ns tU K B ’ s purport ed gami ng v io latio n s “ d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th is a c tio n u n til su c h tim e th a t a fin a l o rd e r is ent er ed. ” A pp. , V ol . 1 at55. O kl ahoma r emoved t he ca s e t o fede r al courtand filed a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t co u n ter c laim a g a in st U K B . U K B late r a m e n d e d its compl ai ntt o add the U ni t ed St at es as a defendantunderthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct( A PA ) , 5 U . S. C . § 702. A l l part i es fi l ed m oti on s for s um m aryj ud gm ent. T he d i stri ctcou rtal so as ked foraddi t i onal br i efi ng on w hetherthe C om m i s s i on’ s Sept ember2000 l et t er de t e r mi ni ng t ha tt he Lan d was no tI nd i a n l a nd w a s a fi na l de c i s i on un de rthe A PA and w hethert hatdet erm i nat i on w as arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous . I n an or derdat ed January26 , 20 06 , t he d i stri ctcou rtcon cl ud ed thatthe C om m i ssi on ’s l et t er w as a fi nal agenc yact i on. T he courtr ever s ed the C om m i s s i on’ s det erm i nat i on as a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s a n d re m a n d e d to th e C o m m is s io n fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . W i t h r es pectt o t he pendi ng s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons , the di s tr i ctcourts t at ed,T h e U n ite d S ta te s a ls o a p p e a le d th e J a n u a ry 2 6 o rd e r, s ee C as e N o. 1 0 6 -7 0 2 8 , b u t su b se q u e n tlyd ism iss e d its a p p e a l. -4- “B eca us e the C our ti s r emandi ng thi s m at t ert o the [Com m i s s i on] forfur ther i nves t i gat i on and expl anat i on, m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent. . . i n thi s act i on a re m o o t.” A p p ., V o l. 3 a t 7 7 3 . T h e c o u rt sta ted f u rth e r th a t, “[ i]n o rd e r to m ai nt ai n t he s t atus quo, t he pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on r emai ns i n effect . ” Id. a t 7 7 4 . O k laho m a fil ed a ti m elyn o ti ce ap p ea li n g the d istri ct co u rt ’s Jan u ary2 6 o rde r. 1 W e as ked the part i es t o s ubm i tbr i efs addr es s i ng w hethert hator deri s appea l abl e. I I . D is cus s i on W e h a v e a p p e llate ju risd ictio n o v e r fin a l d e c isio n s o f th e d istric t co u rts u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B end er v. C lark , 7 4 4 F .2 d 1 4 2 4 , 1 4 2 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). Id. “G ener al l y , t o be fi nal and appe al abl e, t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm entm us tend t he l i t i gat i on and l eave not hi ng t o be done e xceptexec ut e the j udgm ent . ” Id. (quotat i on and brackets om i t t ed). “T he final i tyrequi rem ent i n § 12 91 evinces a leg isla tiv e ju d g m e n t th a t re stric tin g a p p e llate re v iew to fin a l d e c isio n s p re v e n ts t he debi l i t at i ng effecton j udi ci al admi ni s tr at i on caus ed bypi ece m eal appea l di s pos i t i on of w hati s , i n pr act i cal cons equenc es , buta s i ngl e contr over s y . ” Mesa O i l, Inc. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 467 F. 3d 1252, 1254 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on o m itted). Th e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e fi n a l j u d g me n tru l e . Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1292( a) ( 1) w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “[i ] nt er l ocut or yor der s of the di s tr i ct-5-

cour t s . . . gr ant i ng, cont i nui ng, m odi fy i ng, r efus i ng ordi s s ol vi ng i nj unct i ons , or r efus i ng t o di s s ol ve orm odi fyi nj unct i ons . ” B utw e cons true thi s s ect i on n a rro w ly“ to e n su re th a t ap p e a l as o f rig h t u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )(1 ) w ill b e a v a ilab le onl yi n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . ” P i m ent el& Sons G ui tarMakers , Inc. v. P i m ent el , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o tat ion an d b rac k ets o m itted). O kl ahoma ar gues fi r s tt hatw e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1291 b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt’s J a n u a ry2 6 o rd e r is a f in a l ju d g m e n t o n its count er cl ai m . A l t ernat i vel y , t he St at e mai nt ai ns thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on under § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ) b e c a u s e th e J a n u a ry 2 6 o rd e r “ c o n tin u e d ” th e p re lim in a ry inju n c tio n . W e rej ectbo t h o f t hese co ntent i on s as m eri t l ess. A . Juris di ction Under§ 1291 A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r emand t o an admi ni s tr at i ve age ncyforfur ther p ro c e e d in g s is o rd in a ri ly n o t a fin a l, a p p e a la b le o rd e r. See Bender , 744 F. 2d at 1 4 2 6 -2 7 . O k lah o m a d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t an ye x c e p tio n to th a t ru le a p p lies in th is c a s e . See i d. a t 1 4 2 7 -2 8 (n o tin g th e “ g e n e ra l p ro p o sitio n is n o t to b e a p p lied if it w o u ld v iolate ba sic j u d ici al princ iples”). R athe r, itarg u es th at th e d istri ct co u rt “effec t i vel y ” di s m i s s ed i t s cl ai m agai ns tU K B as m oot , byent er i ng a fi nal j udgm enti n t he ca s e. A pl t . J ur i s di ct i onal B r . at6. A l though the St at e does not i ncl ude a c i t at i on t o t he r ecor d, i tappar ent l yr el i es upon t he j udgm entent er ed cont empora neous l yw i t h t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s J anuary26 or der . T hi s ar gum ent b o rde rs on b eing frivo lou s. F ir st, the S tat e p o ints t o n o o rde r bythe d istri ct co u rt-6-

di s m i s s i ng i t s count er cl ai m . I ndeed, i ti s cl earthati n i t s J anuary26 or derthe d istric t co u rt m e re lyd e n ied O k lah o m a ’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t m ot i on as m oot pendi ng t he out come of i t s r emand t o the C om m i s s i on. M or eover , the di s tr i ct cour tdi d notdi r ectentr yof fi nal j udgm enton the St at e’ s count er cl ai m , as req u ir ed b yF ed . R . C iv. P. 54 (b). T h e jud g m en t entere d b ythe d istri ct co u rt sta tes o n lyth a t, “[ i]n a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e O rd e r e n ter e d c o n tem p o ra n e o u sly her ew i t h, t hi s act i on i s her ebyr emanded t o the N at i onal I ndi an G ami ng C om m i s s i on forfur t herpr ocee di ngs . ” A pp. , V ol . 3 at775. B eca us e the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s January26 order i s not a fi nal j ud gm ent on O klahom a’s cl ai m against U K B , w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i tunder§ 1291. B . Juris di cti on Under§ 1292( a) ( 1) O kl ahoma as s ert s al t ernat i vel ythatw e have j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1292( a) ( 1) b e c a u s e t h e J a n u a r y2 6 o r d e rl e f tth e p r e l i m i n a ryi nj u n c t i o n i n p l a c e . We concl ude thatw e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anyof the St at e’ s cl ai m s of err orbyt he di s t r i ctcourtw i t h r es pectt o the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. Fi r s t , i tar gues t hatt he i nj unct i on w as “obt ai ned w i thoutauthor i tyof l aw . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at35. T he St at e moved t o vaca t e the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on on th a t b a sis , b u t th e d istric t co u rt d e n ied its m o tio n o n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 . W e w o u ld or di nar i l yhave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt er l ocut orydeni al of a m o tio n to v a c a te a n inju n c tio n u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ). See Com m er ci alSec. B ank v. WalkerB ank & Trus tC o. , 456 F. 2d 1352, 1355 ( 10th C i r . 1972) ( hol di ng or der-7-

r efus i ng t o di s s ol ve orm odi fypr el i m i naryi nj unct i on appea l abl e under § 1292( a) ( 1) ) . B utt he St at e di d notappea l thatrul i ng w i thi n the t i m e per i od p re s c ri b e d b yF e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 1 ). See Ai d f orWom en v. Fouls t on , 441 F. 3d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( a p p lyin g R u le 4 (a )( 1 ) t o a p p e a l u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 )) . B e c a u se it fa iled to file a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l, w e a re w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng the St at e’ s m ot i on t o vaca t e the p re lim in a ry inju n c tio n . A lva v . Te e n He lp , 469 F. 3d 946, 948 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (ho lding ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l i s jurisdicti o n al pre req u isi te t o ap p ell ate rev iew ). Second, O kl ahoma cont ends thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1292( a) ( 1) b e c a u se , in d e n y in g its su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n , the d istric t co u rt a g a in rejec ted its re q u e st to v a c a te th e p re lim in a ryinju n c tio n . T h e S tate d id n o t se e k to h a v e th e inju n c tio n d is s o lv e d in its s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . See A p p ., V o l. 2 at318. N ordi d i taddr es s i n i t s s um m aryj udgm entbr i ef the pr opr i etyof cont i nui ng ordi s s ol vi ng t he pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on pr i ort o the entryof fi nal jud g m en t. B u t i t po ints t o the fo ll o w ing req u est fo r reli ef in it s su m m ary j udgm entbr i ef: S ince the m aterial fa cts are n o t i n d ispu te, this H o n o rab le C o u rt sh o u ld g ra n t th e S tate . . . S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t o n its C o u n ter c laim ag ains t th e P lai n ti ff

. . . , v ac ate the T em p o raryInju n cti o n h ere tofo re ent er ed and e xt ended a nd decl ar e thatthe comm er ci al gambl i ng oper at i ons bei ng conduct ed on the [Land] byPl ai nt i ff a r e w i thi n the ju ri s d ic tio n o f

th e S ta te . . . .T he St at e as s ert s on appea l t hatt he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have gr ant ed 2 s um m aryj udgm enti n i t s favorand i tas ks t hi s courtt o r emand w i th an i ns truct i on to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to d o s o . See A pl t . O peni ng B r . at24- 33, 35. -8- Id. a t 3 4 7 (e m p h a sis o m itt e d ). A lth o u g h it as se rts th a t w e h a v e a p p e llate j uri sdi ct i on un der § 12 92 (a) (1) based o n the di stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of thi s r equ est t o v acat e t he inj un ct i on , i ti s cl ear that, throug h thi s appea l , O klahom a seeks a r evi ew of the mer i t s of i t s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. 2 W e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f O k laho m a’s su m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n a s m o o t is n o t an a p p e a lab le o rd e r u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )(1 ). It is w e ll-se ttl e d law th a t th e d e n ial o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t is n o t a fin a l, ap p e a lab le d e c is io n . Sm i th v. D i

f f ee Ford-Li ncoln- Mer cur y, Inc. , 298 F. 3d 955, 966 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( di s m i s s i ng appea l of deni al of s um m aryj udgm entforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on) . M or eover , even w hen a di s tr i ctcourtdeni es a s um m aryj udgm ent m ot i on s eeki ng a perm anenti nj unct i on, § 1292( a) ( 1) does notpr ovi de a ba s i s for appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. I n Sw itze rla n dC h e e se A ss ’n , In c . v. E . Ho rn e ’s Ma rk e t, Inc. , 385 U . S. 23, 25 ( 1966) , t he Supr eme C our tchar act er i zed the deni al of s uch a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n b e c a u se o f d isp u ted iss u e s o f

fa c t as re latin g o n lyto “pr etr i al pr ocedur es ” and ther efor e not“‘ i nt er l ocut ory ’ w i thi n the meani ng of § 1292( a) ( 1) . ” The C our tobs erved that“[a ] di s tr i ctj udge’ s or der s advanc i ng a cas e t o t r i al oughtnott o be cr i t i cal l yexami ned and r e- exami ned byt he cumber s om e met hod of appe al befor e he ha s appr oache d the s t age of adj udi cat i on. ” Id. a t 2 5 n .3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). See a lso Her on v. C i t y and-9-

C ount y of D enve r , 3 1 7 F . 2 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 6 3 ) (ho lding d en ial o f su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on s eeki ng perm anenti nj unct i on notappea l abl e under § 1292( a) ( 1) ) . N ordo w e have j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1292( a) ( 1) t o r evi ew a deni al of sum m aryj ud gm ent that i s charact eri zed as r ef us i ng t o dis s olve , r atherthan d e n y in g , a n inju n c tio n . See Beas l ey v . Uni on P ac. R . R . C o. , 652 F. 2d 749, 750 ( 8t h C i r . 1981) ( percur i am) ( appl y i ng Sw i tzerlan d C heese t o di s m i s s appea l for lac k o f ju risd ictio n w h e re d e n ial o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t re su lted in fa ilu re to d issolve injun cti o n ). H er e, O kl ahoma soughta fi nal j udgm enti n i t s favor , one r es ul tof w hi ch w oul d be di s s ol ut i on of the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. I f the di s tr i ctcour thad deni ed the St at e’ s m ot i on bas ed on mat er i al fac t s i n di s put e, i t s or derw oul d not b e a p p e a la b le . See Sw i tzerlan d C heese , 385 U . S. at25 ( not i ng thatdeni al of s um m aryj udgm ent“i s s t r i ct l ya pr etr i al or derthatdeci des onl yone thi ng–thatt he cas e s houl d go t o t r i al ”) . B utt he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notdenythe St at e’ s m ot i on on t he mer i t s . I ts i m pl yhel d t hatal l part i es ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons w er e moot pendi ng t he r emand t o t he C om m i s s i on, effect i vel ypos tponi ng i t s rul i ng on t he m ot i ons . U nders et t l ed l aw pr ecl udi ng pi ece m eal appea l s , w e do nothave juri sd ict ion to rev iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er d en y ing O k laho m a’s su m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n a s m o o t. Fi nal l y , t he St at e ar gues t hatw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s J a n u a ry2 6 o rd e r b e c a u se it ex p licitlylef t th e p re lim in a ryinju n c tio n inU K B arg u es th at w e sh o u ld rejec t th is argu m en t bec au se th e d istri ct co u rt ’s 3 or derdi d not“ext end orpr ol ong the r es tr ai nt . ” Sier ra C l ub v. Marsh , 907 F. 2d 2 1 0 , 2 1 3 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). B u t th is c o u rt h a s n o t co n stru e d “ c o n tin u in g ” in § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ) s o n a rr o w ly. S e e Key e s v . Sc h . D is t. No . 1 , 895 F. 2d 659, 663 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( equat i ng “cont i nui ng” an i nj unct i on w i th r efus i ng t o di s s ol ve it ). -10- pl ace pendi ng t he out come of t he r emand t o the C om m i s s i on, thus “cont i nui ng” the injun cti o n u n d er § 1 2 9 2 (a)(1). O n ce ag ain, w e d isag ree . U n d er § 1 2 9 2 (a)(1), 3 w e have j ur i s di ct i on over“or der s r egar di ng expr es s m ot i ons fori nj unct i ve r el i ef” and “or der s w i t h t he pr act i cal effectof di s pos i ng of a r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef. ” Fo re st G u a rd ia n s v . B a b b itt , 174 F. 3d 1178, 1184- 85 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . H er e, O kl ahoma neveras ked the di s tr i ctcourtt o vaca t e the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on pendi ng t he r emand t o the C om m i s s i on. A bs ents uch a r eques t , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s t at ementt hatt he or derw oul d r emai n i n effectdoes n o t tran sfo rm it s o therw ise-un ap p ea lable o rde r i n to an ap p ea lable interloc u tory inju n c tiv e o rd e r. C

f . Ler m erG er m any G m bHv. Ler m erC or p. , 94 F. 3d 1575, 1 5 7 7 (F ed . C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (dism issi n g ap p ea l of o rde r “ref

u sing ” p reli m inary inju n c tio n u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )(1 ) w h e re th a t re lief w a s n e v e r re q u e ste d ). “[ T ]h e re is no r eas on t o gr anta r i ghtt o appel l at e r evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourtor derdeny i ng r el i ef thatw as nots ought . ” Id. W e re w e to h o ld o th e rw ise , a d istric t co u rt c o u ld notpoi ntoutt he cont i nui ng effectof a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w i thoutcr eat i ng an ap p ea lable o rde r.-11- I I I . Conclusion T h e a p p ea l i s D IS M IS S E D fo r l ac k o f ju ri sd ict ion . T h e C h ero k ee N ati o n ’s mo t i o n s t o fi l e a mi c u s b r i e fs a r e DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

Jo h n C . P o rfili o C i r cui tJ udge