Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARRELL AND OWENS FARM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, a corporation within the United States Department of Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency; Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Company; Rain and Hail, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-1360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: April 2, 2012.
    Decided: April 18, 2012.
    Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Harrell and Owens Farm appeals from the district court’s judgment, filed March 26, 2011, which judgment: (1) upholds the final agency decision, issued December 30, 2008, by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the United States Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency In the Matter of Harrell and Owens Farm and Risk Management Agency; (2) denies Harrell and Owens Farm’s motion to vacate the arbitration award issued by the arbitrator In The Matter of Arbitration between Harrell and Owens Farm and Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company on November 19, 2009; (3) confirms the same arbitration award; and (4) awards Harrell and Owens Farm $93,394.50 in accordance with such arbitration award, which sum has already been paid.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully reviewed the briefs, record, and controlling legal authorities, we agree with the district court’s analysis as set forth in its well-reasoned opinions resolving this appeal. See Harrell and Owens Farm v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 2011 WL 1100265 (E.D.N.C. March 28, 2011); Harrell and Owens Farm v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., No. 4:09-cv-00217-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court.

AFFIRMED.