norml02 - Page 15

 analysis and conclusions° Petitioners had ample opportunity to
 present all evidence relevant to the question of whether
 marijuana has a _currently accepted medical use. _' The
 AdministratorCs evaluation of petitioners _ evidence reflects
 appropriate concerns about its scientific value rather than
 improper bias.
 ARGUMENT
 I. THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISION REJECTING THE CHALLENGES
 PETITIONERS RENEW KERE IS THE LAW OF THE CASE.
 Petitioners essentially renew the same challenges previously
 rejected by this court in ACT Vo DE___A_ 930 Fo2d 936 (D.C. Ciro
 1991) o Their challenge disregards the _'!aw of the case"
 doctrinef under which "any determination as to an issue in the
 case which has previously been determined is ordinarily binding
 upon '_ a later appeals court panel. Lever Bros. Co. v_ Unitej_
 State___s, 981 F.2d 1330, 1332 (DoC. Ciro 1993). Indeed, "[t]he
 most distinctive law of the case rules are those that justify
 refusal by a trial court to reconsider matters once resolved in a
 continuing proceeding, or by an appellate court to reconsider
 matters resolved on a prior appeal°" 18 Co Wright, A. Miller and
 Eo Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 5 4478, at 788 (1981 &
 Supp. 1992)0 The doctrine is based on the principle that "'[i]f
 justice is to be served_ there must at some point be an end to
 litigationo '_ Lever Bros_ Co., 981 F.2d at 1332_
 The law of the case doctrine is a 8'rule of practice [that]
 promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process by
 protecting against the agitation of settled issues. _
 9