to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. The defendants argued that an order of mandamus was not appropriate because the ATF is prohibited by law from spending funds to act upon applications such as the plaintiffs. The defendants further argued that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs application because the plaintiff did not receive a “denial” from the agency within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The plaintiff argued in opposition that he was entitled to an order of mandamus notwithstanding the limitation on ATF expenditures, and that he should be excused from the normal exhaustion of remedies requirement because of the ATF’s ref 1998) (<HOLDING>). II. Mandamus The plaintiff has argued that he
holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo holding that rule 12b6 disposition is reviewed de novo