CRE Homepage About The CRE Advisory Board Newsletter Search Links Site Map Comments/Ideas
Reg Week Archives
Data Access
Data Quality
Regulation by Litigation
Regulation by Information
Regulation by Appropriation
Special Projects
CRE Watch List
Emerging Regulatory Issues
OMB Papers
Guest Column
Voluntary Standards Program
CRE Report Card
Public Docket Preparation
Interactive Public Docket
Electronic Regulatory Reform
Consumer Response Service
Site Search

Enter keyword(s) to search

Leave a CommentUnited States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia Circuit


No. 00-5364


September Term, 2000

Filed On: December 15, 2000


Jim J. Tozzi, in his personal capacity, and as President of Multinational Business Services, Inc., et al.,


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.,



        BEFORE: Sentelle, Henderson, and Rodgers, Circuit Judges


Upon consideration of the motion for injunction pending appeal, the response thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary affirmance, and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for an injunction pending appeal be denied. Appellants have not satisfied the stringent standards required for the injunctive relief sought. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedure 32 (2000). It is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayer Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.

Per Curiam


Mark J. Lange, Clerk

Elizabeth Scott
Deputy Clerk