UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-20209
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANISLAW R. BURZYNSKI, and
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CR-H-95-290)
_________________________________________________________________
April 12, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants appeal from the district court's order setting the
conditions of appellants' pretrial release. And, appellants'
patients seek leave to continue as amicus curiae in this court.
The petition to continue as amicus curiae is GRANTED.
Appellants and amicus curiae contend that the district court
abused its discretion in imposing the condition that appellants not
commit any offense in violation of federal, state, or local law
while on pretrial release. Appellants and amicus curiae maintain
that appellants should be allowed to continue to treat their
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
patients with antineoplaston pending the resolution of appellants'
criminal trial. The condition that appellants not violate federal,
state, or local law was statutorily required under 18 U.S.C. §
3142(c)(1)(A). The interstate distribution of antineoplaston
violates federal law and has been prohibited by a permanent
injunction. United States v. Burzynski Cancer Research Institute,
et al., No. H-83-2069 (S.D. Tex., May 24, 1984). The intrastate
distribution of antineoplaston without approval of the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and outside of FDA-
approved clinical trials violates Texas law. See Trustees of the
Northwest Laundry and Dry Cleaners Health & Welfare Trust Fund v.
Burzynski, 27 F.3d 153, 155 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 1110 (1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing the conditions of pretrial release.
Amicus curiae assert that, in the alternative, the court
should stay the pretrial release order pending the resolution of
appellants' criminal trial. Amicus curiae have not presented a
substantial case on the merits to establish a legal basis for the
court to permit appellants to continue to distribute antineoplaston
without FDA approval and outside of FDA-approved clinical trials.
See Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).
Appellants' motion for oral argument, and amicus curiae's
motion for oral argument, motion to maintain stay, and motion to
remand for evidentiary hearing are DENIED. The district court's
order imposing conditions for pretrial release is AFFIRMED.
- 2 -