norml11 - Page 5

 o --
 with OEA's final order the court again remanded fcr further proceedings not
 inconsistent with its opln_on, NORML v_ BEA, _82 U_S. App. D.C, 11.4_ 559 F,2d
 .°
 735 (i977), The Court directed the then-Acting Administrator of DEA to°refer
 NORML's petition to the-Secretary of the Department of Hea!th, Education_and
 Welfare (HEW) for findings .and, thereafter, to comply with the rulemaking:oProce_
 dures outlined in the. Act at 21 UoS.C.o.._ 81] (a) and (b).
 On remand the Administrator of DEA referred NORML's petitionto HEW: for
 scientific and medical evaluation. On June 4, _1979 the Secretary of HEW advised
 the Administrator of the results of the HE_4 evaluation and recommended that
 marijuana rema#n in Schedule [. _V#thout holding any further hearing the
 Administrator of DEA proceeded to issue a final order ten days later denying
 NORNL's petit'ion and dec1#ning to init#ate proceedings to transfer marijuana
 from Schedule I. 44 Fed. Rage 36123 (1979). NORML went back to the Court of
 Appeal s°
 Vhen the case was called for oral argument there was discussion of the
 then-present status of the matter. DEA had moved for a partial remand. The
 court found that _recons_derat_on of all the issues in this case _ould be appro-
 priate" and again remanded it to DEA, observing: "_4e regrettably fCnd it neces-
 sary to remind respondents IDEA and HEW] of an agency's obligation on remand not
 to 'do anything which #s contrary to either the |attar or sp#rit of themandate
 construed in the _ight of the opinion of [the] court deciding the case.'"
 (Citations omitted.) NORML v, OEA, et a_., No. 79-I_60, Uni'ted States Court of
 Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, unpublished order filed October
 16, _980o DE& was directed to refer al'{ the substances at issue to the Depart-
 ment of Health and Human Services (HI(S); successor agency to HEW,for scien-