United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
---------
Filed August 21, 2001
No. 94-1
In re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association
(Independent Counsel's Motion for Termination Order)
_______
Division for the Purpose of
Appointing Independent Counsels
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, As Amended
_______
Before: Sentelle, Presiding, Fay and Cudahy, Senior
Circuit Judges.
ORDER DEFINING FURTHER DUTIES
OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Per Curiam: On August 3, 2001, Independent Counsel
Robert W. Ray filed with this Court a "Motion for Order of
Termination of Investigation of the Office of Independent
Counsel Robert W. Ray"; and,
Upon due consideration, it appearing to the Court that the
Independent Counsel has represented to the Court that all
investigations were concluded as of January 19, 2001; and,
that in compliance with 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(1)(B), the Inde-
pendent Counsel has filed with the Special Division the final
reports in all of its investigative mandates, which set forth
fully and completely the work of the office; and, for the
reasons more fully set forth in the opinion filed contempora-
neously herewith, it is
(1) ORDERED that the Independent Counsel, effective
September 30, 2001, and subject to further order of this
Court, continue his office only to the extent necessary or
appropriate to fulfill his duties relating to his Final Report,
specifically:
(a) the final submission of such Report inclusive of the
statutory appendix consisting of the comments autho-
rized by this Court in accordance with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(2); (b) the written evaluations of
applications for attorneys' fees in accordance with 28
U.S.C. s 593(f)(2); (c) the archiving and transfer of
reports pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 594(k)(1); (d) the publi-
cation of final reports under 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(3), as
may be ordered by the Court; and, (e) the completion of
any remaining audits in 28 U.S.C. s 596(c)(1).
(2) To the extent necessary or appropriate to the purposes
of this order, the Independent Counsel shall perform any
noninvestigative and nonprosecutorial tasks remaining of his
statutory duties as required to conclude the functions of his
office as set forth in the decretal paragraph (1).
Per Curiam
For the Court:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
by
Marilyn R. Sargent
Chief Deputy Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_______
Filed August 21, 2001
No. 94-1
In re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association
(Independent Counsel's Motion for Termination Order)
_______
Division for the Purpose of
Appointing Independent Counsels
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, As Amended
_______
Before: Sentelle, Presiding, Fay and Cudahy, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Special Division filed per curiam.
Per curiam: As we noted in the Per Curiam order accom-
panying this opinion, the Independent Counsel has come
before this Court moving for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
s 596(b)(1) "terminating the investigation of the office of
Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray" (the "Office"). Literal-
ly, that section of the Ethics in Government Act empowers
the Court to effect the "termination of office" rather than the
termination of investigation. However, we have in the past
construed the statute as granting the lesser included authori-
zation to terminate the investigative functions of the office
while reiterating the noninvestigative statutory duties of the
office, such as those set forth in our accompanying order.
See generally, In re North (Walsh Show Cause Order), 10
F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir., Spec. Div. 1993) (per curiam). In the
present case, as in In re North, it appears to the Court that
an order so delimiting the continuing authority of the Office is
appropriate.
The Independent Counsel has represented to the Court
that he completed all of his investigations as of January 19,
2001. We have no reason to doubt this assertion, and it is not
apparent that any other party would have standing to chal-
lenge that assertion. Insofar as other parties have interests
in the question, these would seem appropriately addressed in
the comments to the report authorized by this Court in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(2). In-
dependent Counsel Ray, like the Independent Counsel in In
re North, does not seek to absolve himself of the duties
contemplated under the statute of responding to attorney fee
applications, archiving, publishing, and conducting such other
supportive noninvestigative functions as may remain his duty.
Neither do we contemplate absolving him of those duties.
Therefore, by the order of even date, we have granted the
termination of investigation sought by the Independent Coun-
sel, but do not terminate his office, as he remains empowered
and obligated under the statute to perform the other nonin-
vestigative duties which neither the Court nor the Depart-
ment of Justice is equipped to perform were we to terminate
his office.
SO ORDERED.