Filed: Mar. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED URBAN INDIAN COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, No. 01-9523 v. (No. 01-025) (Petition for Review) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION, Intervenor. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the p
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED URBAN INDIAN COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, No. 01-9523 v. (No. 01-025) (Petition for Review) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION, Intervenor. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the pa..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 22 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED URBAN INDIAN
COUNCIL, INC.,
Petitioner,
No. 01-9523
v. (No. 01-025)
(Petition for Review)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR,
Respondent.
CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION,
Intervenor.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner United Urban Indian Council, Inc. (UUIC) has provided
employment training to Native Americans in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for
many years with a grant under the Indian and Native American (INA) Programs
section of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2945.
Party-in-interest Citizen Potawatomi Nation (CPN) has served neighboring
Cleveland County with an INA grant. In 1999, the Department of Labor (DOL)
solicited applications for the grant period from July 1, 2000, through June 30,
2002. UUIC applied to serve both Oklahoma County and Cleveland County.
CPN applied to serve Cleveland County and a twelve-mile wide area along the
eastern boundary of Oklahoma County. The DOL awarded the grant money to
service the twelve-mile wide strip of Oklahoma County to CPN. UUIC sought
administrative review. The award was upheld by an administrative law judge
(ALJ) and the DOL’s Administrative Review Board. UUIC now petitions this
court for review. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 2937(a)(1).
CPN contends, however, that the case is moot because UUIC can no longer
obtain the grant under the regulations for the grant period in dispute. We agree.
Under 20 C.F.R. § 667.800(a), UUIC was allowed to request a hearing before an
ALJ to dispute the reduction of its territory and award. If the ALJ would have
-2-
ruled that UUIC should have been selected as the grantee and that UUIC
continued to meet the grant requirements, UUIC would be funded “within 90 days
of the ALJ's decision unless the end of the 90-day period is within six (6) months
of the end of the funding period.” 20 C.F.R. § 667.825(b). Because the grant
period ends on June 30, 2002, this case is already well within the six-month
period. Thus, UUIC could not be refunded now, even if this court were to
determine that the contested territory should have been awarded to UUIC.
UUIC urges us to find that the legal issue underlying the reduction of its
territory and award is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and that the case
is therefore not moot. This argument is without merit. The Supreme Court has
held that an issue is capable of repetition, yet evading review only when two
factors exist: (1) the challenged action is of a duration too short to be fully
litigated before becoming moot, and (2) the complaining party shows that there is
a reasonable expectation that it will be subjected to the same action again.
Weinstein v. Bradford ,
423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975) (per curiam). UUIC did not
seek expedited review that is provided by the regulations, however. See
29 C.F.R. § 18.42. Nor, for that matter, did UUIC ask this court to expedite this
present appeal. Therefore, it cannot be heard now to complain that the DOL’s
action is of a duration too short to be fully litigated before coming moot. See
Midwest Farmworker Employment & Training, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of
-3-
Labor ,
200 F.3d 1198, 1201 (8th Cir. 2000). Because UUIC has not shown that
the issue is evading review, we need not address the second factor of the test.
UUIC also argues that it still has an active case or controversy in the nature
of a declaratory judgment action seeking the future designation as the INA
grantee for the remainder of the grant cycle. We are unpersuaded. Under the
regulations, the award for the grant period from July 1, 2002, through June 30,
2004, was made on March 1, 2002. 20 C.F.R. § 668.260(a). Relief under the Act
is prospective only, however. 20 C.F.R. § 667.825(a). UUIC therefore cannot
demonstrate that any decision from this court concerning the grant period ending
on June 30, 2002, can alter the decision just made for the next grant period.
Further, UUIC has not demonstrated that DOL’s failure to designate it the
incumbent grantee for the disputed territory during the current grant period will
have any affect on the grant decision to be made in 2004. There is therefore no
meaningful relief this court can provide, and this appeal is moot.
The petition for review is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-4-