for relief from federal firearms disabilities. Section 925(c) makes an agency “denial” of an application a predicate to district court jurisdiction, and no such denial has been issued here. As a general rule, “we shall find that Congress has allocated initial review to an administrative body where such intent is ‘fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.’ ” Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 207, 114 S.Ct. 771, 127 L.Ed.2d 29 (1994) (quoting Block v. Community Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 351, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984) (quoting Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 157, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970))). If a statute does indeed route the initial adjudication of a claim through an administrative agency, a di r.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 821, 117 S.Ct. 77, 136
holding that there must first be a denial by atf for the district court to review holding that congress intended for district courts to review only the secretarys denial holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress