Elliott v. Drug Enforcement Administration

D.C. Circuit

Elliott v. Drug Enforcement Administration

55 F. App'x 574

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2003

DocketNo. 02-1277

StatusPublished

This text of 55 F. App'x 574 (Elliott v. Drug Enforcement Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 55 F. App'x 574 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[575]*575 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This petition for review of an order of the Drug Enforcement Administration was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. Petitioner challenges a regulation transferring amphetamine and methamphetamine from Schedule III to Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act. Although Congress initially placed these drugs on Schedule III, the Act expressly authorizes the Attorney General to “transfer ... any drug” — not just “new” drugs, as petitioner suggests — from one schedule to another if certain criteria are met. See 21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(1). This does not represent an unconstitutional delegation of authority, see, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 580 F.2d 827, 837-41 (5th Cir.1978), nor has petitioner demonstrated that the transfer of amphetamine and methamphetamine from Schedule III to Schedule II is otherwise objectionable. See, e.g., United States v. Lafoon, 978 F.2d 1183, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 1992). The petition for review is therefore denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[575]*575 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This petition for review of an order of the Drug Enforcement Administration was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. Petitioner challenges a regulation transferring amphetamine and methamphetamine from Schedule III to Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act. Although Congress initially placed these drugs on Schedule III, the Act expressly authorizes the Attorney General to “transfer ... any drug” — not just “new” drugs, as petitioner suggests — from one schedule to another if certain criteria are met. See 21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(1). This does not represent an unconstitutional delegation of authority, see, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 580 F.2d 827, 837-41 (5th Cir.1978), nor has petitioner demonstrated that the transfer of amphetamine and methamphetamine from Schedule III to Schedule II is otherwise objectionable. See, e.g., United States v. Lafoon, 978 F.2d 1183, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 1992). The petition for review is therefore denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F. App'x 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-drug-enforcement-administration-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack