by petitioners that the absence of a review panel is “a process point,” and that they cannot cite any information they could not have presented during the normal notice-and-eomment period). And courts may not, under the guise of the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious review standard, impose procedural requirements that the APA’s procedural provisions, e.g., APA § 4, 5 U.S.C. § 553, do not themselves impose. Compare Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 524, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978) (noting that the notice- and-comment procedures prescribed by section 4 of the APA are “the maximum procedural requirements which Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon agencies in conducting rulemaking procedures”), with State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (<HOLDING>)', see Garland, supra, at 528-30. A fortiori,
holding that a district court committed plain error by imposing a sentence in contravention of statutory requirements holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements holding that the requirements of explanation and consideration of alternatives do not impose additional procedural requirements upon an agency in contravention of vermont yankee holding that court may not impose procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking that go beyond those of the administrative procedure act holding that a court cannot impose procedural re quirements on an agency beyond the minimum requirements imposed by statute