vol2 - Page 9

 with DEA's ?inal order the court again remanded ?Q_r further proceedings not
 inconsistent with its open,on. NORML v, DEA, 182 U_S_ App. D.C. I14, 55g F.2d
 735 (1977). The Court directed the then-Acting Administrator of DEA to refer
 NORML_s petition to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and
 Welfare CHEW} for ?Indlngs and, thereafter, to co_ly with the ruleBaking proce_
 dures outlined in the Act at 21 U.S.C. § 811 (aS and (b).
 OB remand the Admlnistrator of DEA referred NORML_s petition to HEW for
 _;_, scientific and n_ed_c_l evaluation. On June 4, 197g the Secretary of HZW advised
 the Admlnlstrator of the results of the HEW evaluation and recon_nded that
 marljuana remain In Schedule Z. Without holding ar_y further hearing the
 ...... Administrator of DEA proceeded to issue a final order'ten days later denying
 NORML's petition and declining to Inltlate proceedings to transfer marljuana
 from Schedule I. 44 _ed. Reg. 36123 (Ig79)o NORMCL went back to the Court of
 C,.; Appea 1 s.
 When the case was called ?or oral argument there was discussion of the
 then-present status of the matter, DEA had moved for a partial remand. The
 court found that "reconsideration of all the issues in this case would be appro_
 priate" and again remanded it to DEA, observing: _We regrettably find it neces-
 sary to rebind respondents IDEA and HEld] of an agency's obligation on remand not
 to 'do anything which Is contrary to eith_'.,the let1:e_ or spirlt of the mandate
 construed InS'the light of the opi_oA _f [the] couP: decfdf_.t,b.e,. _c2se.___ ..
 .... (Citat:lons omitt_.) ).ORB v., DEA, et el., No. 7g-1660, Unli:ed States Court of _
 _ Appeals for the Olstrlct of Columbia Circult, unpubllshed order filed October
 16, 1980o DEA was directed to refer all the substances at issue to the Depart-
 ment of Health and Human Services (HH$), successor agency to HEW,for scien-
 ...._