to any of these criteria [set forth in 40 C.F.R. 1508.27], then DOT erred in failing to prepare an EIS.”); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 109 F.Supp.2d 30, 42 (D.D.C.2000) (noting that list of significance factors is “not a checklist,” but finding that the existence of several of them justified setting aside FONSI); Humane Society of the United States v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 98-1950, Tr. Hr’g Mot. T.R.O. (June 23, 1998) (remanding to agency for failure to consider significance of impacts on plaintiffs’ aesthetic interests, but emphasizing that, once agency addresses relevant environmental concerns, FONSI may still be warranted); but see Born Free USA v. Norton, Civil Action No. 03-1497, 278 F.Supp.2d 5, 2003 WL 21871640, *16 (D.D.C. Aug.8, 2003) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs further submit that, so long as
recognizing that our finding that defendant is entitled to voir dire potential jurors on the possible blinding impact of the e4a factor most likely will require a twojury system for all capital cases in which the state seeks to prove that factor holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of  349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks holding that the presence of one intensity factor may be sufficient to deem the action significant in certain circumstances holding presence of a single ceq factor insufficient to conclude that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that fws acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing a finding of no significant impact holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim