norml01 - Page 6

 |
 i INTRODUCTIO__N
 Petitioners Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics ('_ACT_'),
 The Drug Policy Foundations and the National Organization for the
 i Reform of Marijuana Laws ("NO_ML'_), and Intervenors Physicians
 Association for AIDS Care and the Lymphoma Foundation of America,
 I respectfully submit this Reply Brief in response to the Brief for
 the Respondent filed herein_ Respondent relies on the doctrine
 I of law of the case and asserts that the Administrator's decision
 i is both reasonable and procedurally sound and that it does not
 reflect a predisposition against the petition. The Reply Brief
 I shows that none of Respondent_s arguments has merits
 I ARGUMENT
 i I_ THIS APPEAL IS NOT BARRED BY THE W_LAW OF THE CASE '_ DOCTRINE
 Contrary to Respondent_s assertions the decision of
 I this Court in ACT VoDE_____A_ 930 F.2d 936 (D_Co Ciro 1991), did not
 i resolve Petitioners 9 instant challenges -- namely_ that the
 Administrator relied improperly on an FDA standard in its
 I evaluation of marijuana_s rescheduling pursuant to the CSA, and
 that the Administrator's decision is procedurally flawed. In
 l attempting to foreclose this appeals however, Respondent
 I mischaracterizes both the '_law of the case _ doctrine and the
 prior holding of this Court°
 |
 |