**United States Court of Appeals**

^[FOR\ THE\ DISTRICT\ OF\ COLUMBIA\ CIRCUIT]{.smallcaps}^

^Argued\ October\ 18,\ 1999\ Decided\ February\ 29,\ 2000\ ^

^No.\ 98-1516^

^[Herbert\ L.\ Schoenbohm,\ ]{.smallcaps}^

^[Appellant]{.smallcaps}^

^v.^

^[Federal\ Communications\ Commission,\ ]{.smallcaps}^

^[Appellee]{.smallcaps}^

^Appeal\ of\ Orders\ of\ the\ ^

^Federal\ Communications\ Commission^

^\ ^*^Lauren\ A.\ Colby^*^\ argued\ the\ cause\ and\ filed\ the\ briefs\ for\ appellant.^

^\ ^*^James\ M.\ Carr^*^,\ Counsel,\ Federal\ Communications\ Commission,\ argued\ the\ cause\ for\ appellee.\ With\ him\ on\ the\ brief\ were\ ^*^Christopher\ J.\ Wright^*^,\ General\ Counsel,\ and\ ^*^Daniel\ M.\ Armstrong^*^,\ Associate\ General\ Counsel.\ ^*^Pamela\ L.\ Smith^*^,\ Counsel,\ entered\ an\ appearance.^

^\ Before:\ [Sentelle]{.smallcaps},\ [Henderson]{.smallcaps},\ and\ [Garland]{.smallcaps},\ ^*^Circuit\ Judges^*^.^

^\ Opinion\ for\ the\ Court\ filed\ by\ ^*^Circuit\ Judge^*^\ [Garland]{.smallcaps}.^

^\ [Garland,\ ]{.smallcaps}^*^Circuit\ Judge^*^:\ Appellant\ Herbert\ Schoenbohm\ operates\ an\ amateur\ radio\ station\ in\ the\ U.S.\ Virgin\ Islands.\ In\ 1992,\ he\ was\ convicted\ of\ a\ felony\ for\ fraudulently\ using\ counterfeit\ access\ codes\ to\ obtain\ long\ distance\ telephone\ services.^[^1]^\ In\ 1994,\ shortly\ before\ Schoenbohm\'s\ amateur\ radio\ licenses\ were\ due\ to\ expire,\ he\ filed\ a\ renewal\ application\ with\ the\ Federal\ Communications\ Commission\ (FCC).^

^\ After\ a\ series\ of\ hearings,\ an\ administrative\ law\ judge\ (ALJ)\ denied\ Schoenbohm\'s\ application.\ On\ June\ 29,\ 1998,\ the\ Commission\ affirmed\ the\ denial,\ finding\ that\ Schoenbohm\'s\ fraud\ conviction,\ \"in\ combination\ with\"\ his\ misrepresentations\ and\ lack\ of\ candor\ during\ the\ renewal\ proceedings,\ justified\ nonrenewal.\ ^*^Herbert\ L.\ Schoenbohm,^*^\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ 15,028,\ 15,028\ (1998)\ \[hereinafter\ ^*^Decision^*^\].\ Schoenbohm\ filed\ a\ petition\ for\ reconsideration,\ reiterating\ arguments\ he\ had\ previously\ made\ and\ asking\ for\ the\ first\ time\ that\ the\ FCC\ investigate\ allegations\ that\ some\ of\ his\ detractors\ may\ have\ had\ improper\ ex\ parte\ contacts\ with\ the\ ALJ.\ ^*^See^*^\ J.A.\ at\ 77.\ The\ FCC\ denied\ reconsideration,\ restating\ its\ previous\ justifications\ for\ nonrenewal\ and\ rejecting\ the\ request\ for\ an\ inquiry\ into\ the\ ex\ parte\ allegations.\ ^*^See\ Herbert\ L.\ Schoenbohm^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ 23,774,\ 23,777\ (1998)\ \[hereinafter\ ^*^Reconsideration\ Order^*^\].^

^\ Schoenbohm\ contends\ that\ the\ denials\ of\ both\ his\ renewal\ application\ and\ his\ petition\ for\ reconsideration\ were\ arbitrary\ and\ capricious\ agency\ actions,\ in\ violation\ of\ the\ Administrative\ Procedure\ Act,\ 5\ U.S.C.\ §\ 706(2)(A).\ We\ affirm\ the\ FCC\'s\ refusal\ to\ renew\ Schoenbohm\'s\ radio\ licenses\ and\ conclude\ that\ we\ are\ without\ jurisdiction\ to\ review\ the\ rejection\ of\ his\ petition\ for\ reconsideration.^

**^I^**

^\ We\ begin\ with\ the\ FCC\'s\ denial\ of\ Schoenbohm\'s\ renewal\ application.\ Before\ reaching\ the\ merits\ of\ that\ decision,\ however,\ we\ must\ resolve\ a\ preliminary\ question\ of\ jurisdiction.\ The\ Commission\ argues\ that\ Schoenbohm\ did\ not\ appeal\ from\ its\ original\ decision\ to\ deny\ his\ renewal\ application,\ but\ only\ from\ its\ order\ denying\ his\ petition\ to\ reconsider\ that\ decision.\ Denial\ of\ a\ petition\ for\ reconsideration,\ the\ agency\ correctly\ notes,\ is\ generally\ nonreviewable\ unless\ the\ request\ for\ reconsideration\ was\ based\ on\ new\ evidence\ or\ changed\ circumstances.\ ^*^See\ ICC\ v.\ Brotherhood\ of\ Locomotive\ Eng\'rs^*^,\ 482\ U.S.\ 270,\ 279-80\ (1987);\ ^*^Southwestern\ Bell\ Tel.\ Co.\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ 180\ F.3d\ 307,\ 311\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 1999);\ ^*^see\ also\ Entravision\ Holdings,\ LLC\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ No.\ 99-1025,\ slip\ op.\ at\ 4\ &\ n.\*\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ Feb.\ 11,\ 2000)\ (holding\ that\ nonreviewability\ in\ this\ context\ means\ lack\ of\ jurisdiction).^

^\ It\ is\ true\ that\ the\ notice\ of\ appeal\ Schoenbohm\ filed\ in\ this\ court\ characterizes\ his\ appeal\ as\ being\ from\ the\ order\ denying\ the\ petition\ for\ reconsideration.\ ^*^See^*^\ J.A.\ at\ 85.\ It\ is\ also\ true\ that\ in\ ^*^Southwestern\ Bell^*^,\ where\ the\ petition\ for\ review\ designated\ only\ the\ reconsideration\ order,\ we\ held\ both\ that\ the\ reconsideration\ order\ was\ nonreviewable\ and\ that\ the\ underlying\ order\ was\ not\ properly\ before\ us.\ ^*^See\ Southwestern\ Bell^*^,\ 180\ F.3d\ at\ 313-14.\ We\ did\ not,\ however,\ suggest\ that\ the\ failure\ to\ designate\ an\ order\ in\ a\ petition\ for\ review\ (or\ notice\ of\ appeal)\ is\ always\ fatal.\ To\ the\ contrary,\ \"we\ said\ in\ ^*^Southwestern\ Bell\ Telephone\ Co.\ v.\ FCC^*^\ \[that\]\ a\ party\ may\ demonstrate\ its\ intention\ to\ appeal\ from\ one\ order\ despite\ referring\ only\ to\ a\ different\ order\ in\ its\ petition\ for\ review\ if\ the\ petitioner\'s\ intent\ \'can\ be\ fairly\ inferred\'\ from\ the\ petition\ or\ documents\ filed\ more\ or\ less\ contemporaneously\ with\ it.\"\ ^*^Martin\ v.\ FERC^*^,\ 199\ F.3d\ 1370,\ 1372\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 2000)\ (quoting\ ^*^Southwestern\ Bell^*^,\ 180\ F.3d\ at\ 313\ (quoting\ ^*^Brookens\ v.\ White^*^,\ 795\ F.2d\ 178,\ 180\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 1986))).^

^\ Here,\ Schoenbohm\'s\ intent\ to\ appeal\ from\ the\ underlying\ decision\ (as\ well\ as\ from\ the\ denial\ of\ reconsideration)\ is\ fairly\ inferable\ from\ the\ \"concise\ statement\ of\ reasons,\"\ required\ by\ 47\ U.S.C.\ §\ 402(c),\ that\ he\ filed\ together\ with\ his\ notice\ of\ appeal.\ That\ statement\ expressly\ lists\ each\ of\ his\ challenges\ to\ the\ underlying\ decision,\ including\ arguments\ that\ the\ FCC\ erred\ in\ relying\ on\ his\ criminal\ conviction\ and\ in\ finding\ that\ he\ lacked\ candor\ in\ his\ testimony\ before\ the\ agency.\ It\ also\ separately\ challenges\ the\ agency\'s\ refusal\ to\ investigate\ his\ allegations\ of\ improper\ ex\ parte\ contacts\ with\ the\ ALJ.\ ^*^See^*^\ J.A.\ at\ 85-86.\ Schoenbohm\'s\ ancillary\ filing\ therefore\ makes\ this\ case\ like\ ^*^Damsky\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ in\ which\ we\ recently\ inferred\ an\ appellant\'s\ intent\ to\ appeal\ an\ underlying\ decision\ from\ the\ fact\ that\ her\ concise\ statement\ of\ reasons\ challenged\ the\ substantive\ merits\ of\ that\ decision.\ ^*^See^*^\ 199\ F.3d\ 527,\ 533\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 2000);\ ^*^see\ also\ Martin^*^,\ 199\ F.3d\ at\ 1373\ (holding\ that\ petitioner\'s\ intent\ to\ seek\ review\ of\ underlying\ order\ was\ fairly\ inferable\ from\ his\ contemporaneously\ filed\ motion\ for\ stay).\ At\ the\ same\ time,\ it\ makes\ this\ case\ unlike\ ^*^Southwestern\ Bell^*^,\ where\ there\ was\ no\ such\ challenge\ in\ any\ filing\ \"prior\ to\ the\ brief\ filed\ in\ this\ court.\"\ ^*^Southwestern\ Bell^*^,\ 180\ F.3d\ at\ 313.^

^\ Because\ Schoenbohm\'s\ intent\ to\ appeal\ the\ FCC\'s\ underlying\ decision\ can\ reasonably\ be\ inferred\ from\ his\ concise\ statement\ of\ reasons,\ and\ because\ for\ the\ same\ reason\ the\ FCC\ \"cannot\ claim\ that\ any\ notice\ defects\ surprised\ or\ misled\ it\ with\ regard\ to\ the\ issues\ \[appellant\]\ intended\ to\ raise\ on\ appeal,\"\ we\ conclude\ that\ we\ have\ jurisdiction\ to\ review\ the\ FCC\'s\ decision\ to\ deny\ renewal\ of\ Schoenbohm\'s\ amateur\ radio\ licenses.\ ^*^Damsky^*^,\ 199\ F.3d\ at\ 533.^

**^II^**

^\ We\ review\ the\ merits\ of\ the\ FCC\'s\ decision\ only\ to\ determine\ whether\ the\ decision\ was\ \"arbitrary,\ capricious,\ an\ abuse\ of\ discretion,\ or\ otherwise\ not\ in\ accordance\ with\ law,\"\ 5\ U.S.C.\ §\ 706(2)(A).\ We\ review\ the\ factual\ findings\ upon\ which\ the\ decision\ was\ based\ to\ ensure\ that\ they\ were\ supported\ by\ \"substantial\ evidence,\"\ ^*^id.^*^\ §\ 706(2)(E).\ ^*^See^*^\ 47\ U.S.C.\ §\ 402(g);\ ^*^Damsky^*^,\ 199\ F.3d\ at\ 533.\ \"Substantial\ evidence,\"\ in\ turn,\ is\ defined\ as\ \"such\ relevant\ evidence\ as\ a\ reasonable\ mind\ might\ accept\ as\ adequate\ to\ support\ a\ conclusion.\"\ ^*^Consolo\ v.\ Federal\ Maritime\ Comm\'n^*^,\ 383\ U.S.\ 607,\ 620\ (1966)\ (quoting\ ^*^Consolidated\ Edison\ Co.\ v.\ NLRB^*^,\ 305\ U.S.\ 197,\ 229\ (1938)).\ Because\ this\ standard\ is\ \"something\ less\ than\ the\ weight\ of\ the\ evidence,\ \...\ the\ possibility\ of\ drawing\ two\ inconsistent\ conclusions\ from\ the\ evidence\ does\ not\ prevent\ an\ administrative\ agency\'s\ finding\ from\ being\ supported\ by\ substantial\ evidence.\"\ ^*^Id.^*

^\ In\ the\ following\ sections,\ we\ apply\ these\ principles\ to\ each\ of\ Schoenbohm\'s\ challenges\ to\ the\ FCC\'s\ refusal\ to\ renew\ his\ radio\ licenses.^

**^A^**

^\ Schoenbohm\'s\ first\ contention\ is\ that\ it\ was\ arbitrary\ and\ capricious\ for\ the\ FCC\ to\ deny\ renewal\ based\ on\ his\ criminal\ conviction.\ In\ 1990,\ the\ Commission\ modified\ its\ \"character\"\ policy\ to\ provide\ that\ \"evidence\ of\ any\ conviction\ for\ misconduct\ constituting\ a\ felony\ will\ be\ relevant\ to\ our\ evaluation\ of\ an\ applicant\'s\ or\ licensee\'s\ character.\"\ ^*^Policy\ Regarding\ Character\ Qualifications\ in\ Broadcast\ Licensing^*^,\ 5\ F.C.C.R.\ 3252,\ 3252\ (1990)\ (footnote\ omitted)\ \[hereinafter\ ^*^Character\ Policy^*^\].\ Such\ evidence\ is\ relevant,\ the\ FCC\ said,\ because\ it\ aids\ the\ Commission\ in\ ascertaining\ whether\ a\ licensee\ will\ \"deal\ truthfully\ with\ the\ Commission\ and\ \...\ comply\ with\ \[its\]\ rules\ and\ policies.\"\ ^*^Id.^*^\ (quoting\ 102\ F.C.C.2d\ 1179,\ 1190-91\ (1986)).\ Rather\ than\ establish\ a\ \"\ \'hierarchy\'\ of\ felonies\ that\ might\ arise\ in\ individual\ cases,\"\ the\ Commission\ examines\ the\ impact\ of\ a\ conviction\ on\ a\ case‑by‑case\ basis.\ ^*^Id.^*

^\ There\ is\ nothing\ unreasonable\ about\ the\ FCC\'s\ conclusion\ that\ Schoenbohm\'s\ felony\ conviction\ was\ relevant\ to\ his\ license\ renewal.\ A\ conviction\ for\ fraudulent\ conduct\ plainly\ calls\ into\ question\ a\ licensee\'s\ ability\ to\ act\ in\ a\ manner\ consonant\ with\ FCC\ regulations.\ As\ the\ Commission\ observed,\ fraud\ \"is\ a\ subject\ area\ the\ Commission\ has\ traditionally\ considered\ to\ be\ pertinent\ to\ its\ evaluation\ of\ a\ licensee\'s\ character.\"\ ^*^Decision^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 15,038^*^.^*^\ Schoenbohm\ argues,\ however,\ that\ the\ Commission\ acted\ arbitrarily\ in\ judging\ his\ conviction\ not\ just\ relevant,\ but\ sufficient\ to\ justify\ denial,\ since\ in\ other\ cases\ it\ has\ renewed\ a\ license\ or\ granted\ a\ permit\ despite\ an\ applicant\'s\ felony\ conviction\ when\ the\ applicant\ showed\ evidence\ of\ rehabilitation.\ ^*^See,\ e.g.^*^,\ ^*^Richard\ Richards^*^,\ 10\ F.C.C.R.\ 3950\ (Rev.\ Bd.\ 1995);\ ^*^Alessandro\ Broad.\ Co.^*^,\ 99\ F.C.C.2d\ 1\ (Rev.\ Bd.\ 1984).\ According\ to\ appellant,\ he\ too\ established\ his\ rehabilitation.^

^\ The\ FCC\'s\ policy\ does\ acknowledge\ rehabilitation\ as\ a\ mitigating\ factor\ in\ assessing\ an\ applicant\'s\ character.\ ^*^See\ Character\ Policy^*^,\ 5\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 3252\ &\ n.4.\ Here,\ however,\ the\ FCC\ found\ that\ Schoenbohm\ demonstrated\ an\ absence\ of\ rehabilitation\ by\ making\ deliberate\ misrepresentations\ and\ displaying\ a\ lack\ of\ candor\ during\ the\ renewal\ proceedings.\ ^*^See\ Decision^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 15,038.\ Moreover,\ because\ these\ occurred\ in\ the\ course\ of\ the\ agency\'s\ own\ proceedings,\ they\ were\ a\ rationale\ for\ nonrenewal\ that\ went\ beyond\ the\ felony\ conviction\ alone.\ ^*^See\ id.^*^\ Commission\ regulations\ forbid\ applicants\ from\ \"mak\[ing\]\ any\ misrepresentation\ or\ willful\ material\ omission\ bearing\ on\ any\ matter\....\"\ 47\ C.F.R.\ §\ 1.17;\ ^*^see\ also^*^\ 47\ U.S.C.\ §\ 312(a)(1).\ A\ licensee\'s\ complete\ candor\ is\ important\ to\ the\ FCC\ because\ \"effective\ regulation\ is\ premised\ upon\ the\ agency\'s\ ability\ to\ depend\ upon\ the\ representations\ made\ to\ it\ by\ its\ licensees.\"\ ^*^Leflore\ Broad.\ Co.\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ 636\ F.2d\ 454,\ 461\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 1980);\ ^*^see\ also\ Character\ Policy^*^,\ 5\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 3253.\ Accordingly,\ it\ is\ well\ recognized\ that\ the\ Commission\ may\ disqualify\ an\ applicant\ who\ deliberately\ makes\ misrepresentations\ or\ lacks\ candor\ in\ dealing\ with\ the\ agency.\ ^*^See\ Swan\ Creek\ Communications,\ Inc.\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ 39\ F.3d\ 1217,\ 1221-24\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 1994);\ ^*^Garden\ State\ Broad.\ Ltd.\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ 996\ F.2d\ 386,\ 393-94\ (D.C.\ Cir.\ 1993).\ The\ FCC\'s\ findings\ with\ respect\ to\ Schoenbohm\'s\ misrepresentations\ and\ lack\ of\ candor\ are\ therefore\ more\ than\ sufficient\ to\ distinguish\ this\ case\ from\ the\ precedents\ he\ cites.^

**^B^**

^\ Schoenbohm\ does\ not\ dispute\ that\ if\ he\ had\ made\ misrepresentations\ to\ the\ Commission,\ that\ fact,\ together\ with\ his\ fraud\ conviction,\ would\ have\ justified\ nonrenewal.\ Instead,\ he\ disputes\ that\ he\ made\ any\ misrepresentations.\ The\ FCC\ found\ to\ the\ contrary\ in\ connection\ with\ two\ aspects\ of\ his\ presentations\ to\ the\ Commission.\ ^

^\ First,\ the\ Commission\ determined\ that\ Schoenbohm\ made\ misrepresentations\ and\ lacked\ candor\ in\ testifying\ about\ the\ nature\ of\ his\ prior\ felony.\ As\ the\ Third\ Circuit\ noted\ in\ affirming\ his\ conviction,\ Schoenbohm\ was\ found\ guilty\ of\ violating\ 18\ U.S.C.\ §\ 1029(a)(1)\ because\ he\ \"^*^used^*^\ a\ counterfeit\ access\ device.\"\ ^*^United\ States\ v.\ Schoenbohm^*^,\ No.\ 93-7516,\ slip\ op.\ at\ 3\ (3d\ Cir.\ Apr.\ 18,\ 1994)\ (emphasis\ added).\ Schoenbohm\ effectively\ conceded\ this\ in\ his\ first\ written\ submission\ to\ the\ Commission,\ stating\ that\ he\ was\ \"convicted\ for\ defrauding\ a\ telephone\ resale\ service\ provider\ by\ \...\ making\ unauthorized\ long\ distance\ calls.\"\ Schoenbohm\ Aff.\ at\ 1\ (Aug.\ 8,\ 1995)\ (J.A.\ at\ 160).\ In\ subsequent\ presentations,\ however,\ Schoenbohm\ described\ his\ conviction\ differently.\ In\ a\ July\ 18,\ 1995\ affidavit\ he\ said:^

^I\ did\ not\ steal\ any\ money\ or\ cause\ the\ account\ of\ any\ subscriber\ to\ be\ debited.\ ^*^I\ was\ convicted\ solely\ of\ having\ knowledge\ in\ my\ mind^*^\ of\ certain\ telephone\ codes\ of\ which\ 4\ of\ the\ 6\ digits\ were\ said\ to\ be\ similar\ to\ those\ that\ could\ be\ used\ to\ make\ long\ distance\ calls\ without\ paying\ for\ them.^

^Schoenbohm\ Aff.\ at\ 2\ (J.A.\ at\ 185)\ (emphasis\ added).\ And\ in\ oral\ testimony\ before\ the\ Commission,\ he\ characterized\ his\ conviction\ as\ based\ on\ his\ possession\ of\ \"numbers\ in\ my\ mind,\"\ rather\ than\ on\ the\ performance\ of\ any\ unlawful\ act.\ ^*^Decision^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 15,031\ (quoting\ Tr.\ at\ 38).^

^\ On\ the\ basis\ of\ this\ evidence,\ the\ FCC\ found\ that\ Schoenbohm\ had\ intentionally\ portrayed\ his\ crime\ in\ a\ misleading\ manner\ in\ order\ to\ minimize\ its\ significance.\ Schoenbohm\ maintains\ that\ he\ was\ not\ attempting\ to\ mislead,\ but\ rather\ was\ simply\ trying\ to\ explain\ that\ his\ crime\ involved\ numeric\ codes\ rather\ than\ mechanical\ devices.\ Although\ that\ is\ not\ an\ impossible\ reading\ of\ his\ testimony,\ it\ was\ certainly\ reasonable\ for\ the\ FCC\ to\ reach\ a\ contrary\ conclusion.^

^\ The\ FCC\ also\ found\ that\ Schoenbohm\ misrepresented\ the\ facts\ and\ lacked\ candor\ in\ connection\ with\ an\ inquiry\ the\ ALJ\ made\ into\ whether\ he\ had\ attempted\ to\ violate\ the\ agency\'s\ ex\ parte\ rules---by\ urging\ others\ to\ ask\ the\ Virgin\ Islands\'\ congressional\ delegate\ to\ intervene\ with\ the\ FCC\ on\ his\ behalf.^[^2]^\ The\ ex\ parte\ rules\ prohibit\ a\ party\ in\ specified\ proceedings\ (including\ the\ proceedings\ at\ issue\ here)\ from\ making\ written\ presentations\ to\ the\ Commission\ without\ serving\ them\ on\ the\ other\ parties,\ and\ from\ making\ oral\ presentations\ without\ notice\ and\ an\ opportunity\ for\ the\ others\ to\ be\ present.\ ^*^See^*^\ 47\ C.F.R.\ §§\ 1.1202,\ 1.1208.\ They\ also\ provide\ that\ \"\[n\]o\ person\ shall\ solicit\ or\ encourage\ others\ to\ make\ any\ presentation\ which\ he\ or\ she\ is\ prohibited\ from\ making\....\"\ ^*^Id.^*^\ §\ 1.1210.^

^\ In\ a\ radio\ conversation\ with\ another\ amateur\ operator,\ Schoenbohm\ was\ tape\ recorded\ as\ saying:^

^I\'m\ not\ allowed\ under\ ex‑parte\ rules\ to\ ask\ for\ assistance\ of\ \...\ people\ in\ political\ positions\ but\ other\ people\ if\ they\ feel\ that\ government\ is\ overbearing\ or\ I\'m\ being\ treated\ unfairly,\ have\ every\ right\ to\ point\ this\ out\ to\ their\ elected\ representatives.^

^J.A.\ at\ 175.\ He\ also\ told\ the\ other\ operator:^

^I\'m\ not\ permitted\ at\ this\ time\ because\ of\ ex‑parte\ rules\ to\ make\ any\ requests\ of\ political\ intervention.\ Other\ people\ could\ do\ it\ if\ they\ are\ so\ disposed\ but\ I\ can\'t\ do\ it.\ Go\ ahead.^

*^Id.^*^\ Schoenbohm\ then\ spelled\ out\ the\ congressional\ delegate\'s\ name,\ and\ provided\ an\ address\ and\ telephone\ number\ at\ which\ he\ could\ be\ reached.\ ^*^Id.^*

^\ When\ asked\ to\ explain\ this\ conversation,\ Schoenbohm\ told\ the\ ALJ\ that\ he\ intended\ only\ to\ share\ his\ newly\ acquired\ knowledge\ regarding\ the\ ex\ parte\ rules,\ and\ that\ he\ did\ not\ intend\ to\ encourage\ an\ ex\ parte\ solicitation\ on\ his\ behalf.\ ^*^See\ Herbert\ L.\ Schoenbohm^*^,\ 11\ F.C.C.R.\ 1146,\ 1148-49\ (1996)\ (initial\ decision\ of\ ALJ).\ Later,\ he\ submitted\ an\ affidavit\ reiterating\ that\ he\ was\ simply\ \"expounding\ on\ \[his\]\ newly\ discovered\ knowledge\ of\ the\ ex\ parte\ rules,\"\ and\ was\ not\ asking\ anyone\ to\ make\ a\ contact.\ Schoenbohm\ Aff.\ ¶\ 8\ (Feb.\ 1997)\ (J.A.\ at\ 191).\ Once\ again,\ although\ it\ is\ not\ impossible\ that\ Schoenbohm\ intended\ to\ do\ no\ more\ than\ declare\ his\ understanding\ of\ the\ law,\ the\ record\ provides\ substantial\ evidence\ to\ support\ the\ FCC\'s\ finding\ that\ this\ explanation\ was\ less\ than\ candid,\ and\ that\ he\ was\ in\ fact\ trying\ to\ solicit\ others\ to\ make\ ex\ parte\ submissions\ on\ his\ behalf.^

^\ Schoenbohm\ further\ contends\ that\ because\ there\ is\ no\ evidence\ that\ any\ ex\ parte\ contacts\ actually\ occurred,\ he\ \"is\ being\ punished\ simply\ for\ uttering\ words\ to\ a\ friend\ in\ the\ course\ of\ a\ private\ amateur\ radio\ conversation.\"\ Schoenbohm\ Br.\ at\ 13-14.\ This,\ he\ argues,\ violates\ the\ First\ Amendment.\ He\ is\ wrong\ for\ two\ reasons.\ First,\ the\ agency\'s\ ex\ parte\ rules\ do\ not\ interfere\ with\ Schoenbohm\'s\ right\ to\ discuss\ the\ proceedings\ with\ others;\ they\ merely\ require\ that\ communications\ with\ the\ agency\ be\ on\ the\ record.\ As\ the\ FCC\ correctly\ concluded,\ \"rules\ intended\ to\ protect\ the\ integrity\ of\ the\ administrative\ process\ by\ requiring\ that\ presentations\ to\ the\ agency\ be\ made\ on\ the\ record\ and\ that\ solicitations\ of\ such\ presentations\ be\ limited\ to\ requests\ for\ on‑the‑record\ presentations\ d\[o\]\ not\ violate\ the\ First\ Amendment.\"\ ^*^Reconsideration\ Order^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 23,775;\ ^*^see\ California\ Motor\ Transp.\ Co.\ v.\ Trucking\ Unlimited^*^,\ 404\ U.S.\ 508,\ 513\ (1972)\ (stating\ that\ although\ the\ First\ Amendment\ protects\ the\ right\ of\ access\ to\ agencies\ and\ courts,\ it\ does\ not\ immunize\ from\ proscription\ \"practice\[s\]\ which\ may\ corrupt\ the\ administrative\ or\ judicial\ processes\");\ ^*^cf.\ National\ Soc\'y\ of\ Prof\'l\ Eng\'rs\ v.\ United\ States^*^,\ 435\ U.S.\ 679,\ 697\ (1978)\ (noting\ that\ although\ \"an\ injunction\ against\ price\ fixing\ abridges\ the\ freedom\ of\ businessmen\ to\ talk\ to\ one\ another\ about\ prices,\"\ the\ First\ Amendment\ does\ not\ make\ it\ impossible\ to\ enforce\ the\ antitrust\ laws).^

^\ Moreover,\ and\ more\ fundamentally,\ the\ FCC\ did\ not\ deny\ Schoenbohm\'s\ renewal\ application\ because\ he\ violated,\ or\ attempted\ to\ violate,\ the\ ex\ parte\ rules.\ Nor\ did\ it\ do\ so\ because\ of\ what\ he\ said\ to\ his\ fellow\ radio\ operator.\ Rather,\ the\ FCC\ denied\ the\ application\ because\ Schoenbohm\ made\ misleading\ statements\ to\ the\ agency\ itself,\ and\ it\ is\ well\ established\ that\ the\ First\ Amendment\ does\ not\ protect\ mis-representations\ made\ in\ administrative\ adjudications.\ ^*^See\ California\ Motor\ Transp.^*^,\ 404\ U.S.\ at\ 512-13.^

^\ For\ the\ foregoing\ reasons,\ we\ conclude\ there\ was\ substantial\ evidence\ to\ support\ the\ FCC\'s\ findings\ that\ Schoenbohm\ made\ misrepresentations\ and\ lacked\ candor\ in\ his\ testimony\ regarding\ both\ his\ felony\ conviction\ and\ his\ efforts\ to\ induce\ ex\ parte\ communications\ with\ the\ Commission.\ We\ further\ conclude\ that\ the\ FCC\ acted\ reasonably\ in\ deciding\ that\ Schoenbohm\'s\ \"lack\ of\ candor\ and\ misrepresentation\ along\ with\ the\ felony\ conviction\ together\"\ justified\ nonrenewal\ of\ his\ licenses.\ ^*^Decision^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 15,038.^

**^III^**

^\ Following\ the\ FCC\'s\ original\ decision\ denying\ his\ license\ renewal\ on\ June\ 29,\ 1998,\ Schoenbohm\ petitioned\ the\ agency\ for\ reconsideration.\ In\ addition\ to\ restating\ his\ previous\ arguments,\ he\ asked\ for\ the\ first\ time\ that\ the\ Commission\ investigate\ whether\ amateur\ operators\ who\ disliked\ him\ had\ themselves\ communicated\ with\ the\ ALJ\ ex\ parte,\ seeking\ to\ have\ his\ application\ denied.\ In\ support\ of\ this\ request,\ Schoenbohm\ stated\ that\ on\ January\ 17,\ 1998\ he\ had\ made\ a\ tape\ recording\ of\ a\ conversation\ between\ two\ amateur\ operators\ which,\ he\ asserted,\ indicated\ that\ his\ detractors\ were\ making\ calls\ to\ the\ ALJ.\ ^*^See^*^\ Pet.\ for\ Recons.\ ¶¶\ 5,\ 6\ (J.A.\ at\ 77).^

^\ The\ FCC\ rejected\ Schoenbohm\'s\ request\ for\ an\ inquiry\ on\ two\ grounds.\ First,\ the\ agency\ held\ it\ untimely\ because\ it\ was\ based\ neither\ on\ changed\ circumstances\ nor\ on\ newly\ discovered\ facts.\ As\ the\ FCC\ noted,\ Schoenbohm\'s\ request\ relied\ on\ a\ conversation\ he\ had\ taped\ more\ than\ six\ months\ before\ the\ Commission\'s\ decision\ on\ his\ renewal\ application.\ ^*^See\ Reconsideration\ Order^*^,\ 13\ F.C.C.R.\ at\ 23,775.\ Second,\ the\ FCC\ rejected\ Schoenbohm\'s\ request\ on\ the\ ground\ that\ the\ tape‑recorded\ conversation\ \"d\[id\]\ not\ provide\ probative\ evidence\ that\ anyone\ contacted\ or\ attempted\ to\ contact\ \[the\ ALJ\],\ let\ alone\ that\ any\ such\ contact\ reached\ the\ Judge.\"\ ^*^Id.^*^\ at\ 23,776.\ Schoenbohm\'s\ allegation,\ the\ FCC\ said,\ was\ based\ \"solely\ on\ hearsay,\ speculation,\ and\ rumor.\"\ ^*^Id.^*

^\ In\ ^*^ICC\ v.\ Brotherhood\ of\ Locomotive\ Engineers^*^\ (^*^BLE^*^),\ the\ Supreme\ Court\ held\ that\ an\ agency\'s\ denial\ of\ a\ petition\ for\ reconsideration\ is\ nonreviewable\ unless\ the\ petition\ was\ based\ on\ \"new\ evidence\ or\ changed\ circumstances.\"\ 482\ U.S.\ at\ 284.\ Included\ within\ the\ ambit\ of\ nonreviewable\ decisions\ were\ those\ concerning\ matters\ that,\ even\ though\ \"newly\ raised,\"\ were\ \"previously\ available.\"\ ^*^Id.^*^\ at\ 283.\ The\ Court\ treated\ nonreviewability\ under\ such\ circumstances\ as\ jurisdictional,\ ^*^see\ id.^*^\ at\ 287,\ a\ point\ this\ circuit\ confirmed\ in\ ^*^Entravision\ Holdings,\ LLC\ v.\ FCC^*^,\ No.\ 99-1025,\ slip\ op.\ at\ 4\ n.\*.^

^\ Schoenbohm\ does\ not\ contend\ that\ his\ petition\ for\ reconsideration\ was\ based\ on\ \"new\ evidence\"\ in\ the\ sense\ of\ evidence\ not\ \"previously\ available\"\ to\ him.\ To\ the\ contrary,\ it\ is\ apparent\ on\ the\ face\ of\ the\ petition\ that\ the\ evidence\ upon\ which\ he\ relied---the\ tape\ recording\ of\ an\ amateur\ radio\ transmission---was\ previously\ available.\ As\ the\ FCC\ noted,\ the\ petition\ states\ that\ Schoenbohm\ made\ the\ recording\ on\ January\ 17,\ 1998---six\ months\ before\ the\ FCC\ rendered\ its\ original\ decision\ on\ his\ renewal\ application.\ Schoenbohm\ could\ have,\ and\ under\ FCC\ rules\ should\ have,\ submitted\ this\ evidence\ prior\ to\ that\ decision.^[^3]^\ He\ failed\ to\ do\ so,\ and\ on\ appeal\ does\ not\ respond\ to\ the\ FCC\'s\ contention\ that\ this\ omission\ deprives\ us\ of\ jurisdiction.\ This\ is\ not\ a\ case,\ therefore,\ in\ which\ nonreviewability\ means\ that\ \"petitioner\ will\ have\ been\ deprived\ of\ all\ opportunity\ for\ judicial\ consideration\ \...\ of\ facts\ which,\ through\ no\ fault\ of\ his\ own,\ the\ original\ proceeding\ did\ not\ contain.\"\ ^*^BLE^*^,\ 482\ U.S.\ at\ 279.\ Here,\ the\ fault\ is\ solely\ that\ of\ petitioner,\ and\ because\ his\ petition\ was\ not\ based\ on\ new\ evidence\ or\ changed\ circumstances,\ we\ are\ without\ jurisdiction\ to\ review\ its\ denial.^[^4]

**^IV^**

^\ The\ FCC\'s\ decision\ denying\ appellant\'s\ application\ for\ renewal\ of\ his\ amateur\ radio\ licenses\ is\ affirmed.\ Insofar\ as\ appellant\ also\ appeals\ from\ the\ FCC\'s\ refusal\ to\ reconsider\ that\ decision,\ we\ dismiss\ that\ appeal\ for\ lack\ of\ jurisdiction.\ ^*^See\ BLE^*^,\ 482\ U.S.\ at\ 284,\ 287;\ ^*^Entravision\ Holdings^*^,\ No.\ 99-1025,\ slip\ op.\ at\ 4\ n.\*.^

[^1]: Schoenbohm was found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1),
    which provides that anyone who \"knowingly and with intent to
    defraud produces, uses, or traffics in one or more counterfeit
    access devices\" commits a felony. The statute defines \"access
    device\" as \"any card, plate, code, account number, \... or other
    means of account access that can be used \... to obtain money,
    goods, services, or any other thing of value.\" *Id.* § 1029(e)(1).
    An access device is \"counterfeit\" if it is \"counterfeit,
    fictitious, altered, or forged.\" *Id.* § 1029(e)(2).

[^2]: This inquiry is distinct from the inquiry Schoenbohm himself
    requested, which would have investigated whether opponents of his
    application had engaged in ex parte communications with the ALJ.
    *See* discussion *infra* Part III.

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1214 (\"Any party to a proceeding \... who has
    substantial reason to believe that any violation of \[the ex parte
    rules\] has been solicited, attempted, or committed shall promptly
    advise the Office of General Counsel in writing of all the facts and
    circumstances which are known to him or her.\"); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.65(a) (\"Each applicant is responsible for the continuing
    accuracy and completeness of information furnished in a pending
    application or in Commission proceedings involving a pending
    application\.... Whenever there has been a substantial change as to
    any other matter which may be of decisional significance in a
    Commission proceeding involving the pending application, the
    applicant shall as promptly as possible \... submit a statement
    furnishing such additional or corrected information as may be
    appropriate\....\").

[^4]: In this case, little turns on whether we hold that the court lacks
    jurisdiction, or whether we consider the issue on the merits. Even
    if we were to consider the merits, *BLE* instructs that we must
    uphold an agency's decision to deny reconsideration unless there was
    the clearest abuse of discretion. *See* 482 U.S. at 278; *see also
    Southwestern Bell*, 180 F.3d at 311; *Beehive Tel. Co. v. FCC*, 180
    F.3d 314, 319-20 (D.C. Cir. 1999). It would be difficult to find
    such an abuse in a case like this, where the agency's denial was
    based both on the unexcused untimeliness of the appellant's
    submission and on its lack of probative support.