United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Filed April 13, 2001
No. 99-1433
Slinger Drainage, Inc.,
Petitioner
v.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Respondent
On Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing
---------
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Sentelle and Randolph,
Circuit Judges.
O R D E R
Upon consideration of petitioner's petition for rehearing, it
is
ORDERED that the petition be denied for the reasons
stated in the attached memorandum.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
M E M O R A N D U M
Slinger Drainage, Inc.'s petition for rehearing is meritless.
Petitioner claims that our published decision in this case,
Slinger Drainage, Inc. v. EPA, 237 F.3d 681 (D.C. Cir. 2001),
is inconsistent with the court's decision in United States v.
Carver, 671 F.2d 577 (D.C. Cir. 1982). This claim is misguid-
ed. Carver involved our consideration of Fed. R. Crim. P.
6(g), which states that "no grand jury may serve more than
18 months." We held that this provision should be interpret-
ed in light of Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a), which requires that "[i]n
computing any period of time the day of the act or event from
which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be
included." Carver did not address the situation presented
here--a statutory judicial review provision in which Congress
has mandated a particular method of counting.
Petitioner also points to this court's disposition in National
Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1300 v. Federal
Labor Relations Authority, No. 85-1541 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 6,
1985) ("NFFE"), as grounds for rehearing. The court's
unpublished order in NFFE merely states that "Appellant
filed a timely petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 26 (a)."
Obviously, this provides no basis for rehearing. More impor-
tantly, however, under D.C. Cir. R. 28(c), "[u]npublished
orders or judgments of this court ... are not to be cited as
precedent." Accordingly, the judgment in NFFE is not
binding precedent.