Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09570/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09570-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Myles C. Culbertson
Petitioner
Department of Agriculture
Respondent

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MYLES C. CULBERTSON, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

APPEAL FROM A DECISION AND ORDER 

OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

(A.Q. Docket No. 91-2) 

FILED 

Ualtld States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 01 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerlt 

No. 94-9570 

M. Karen Kilgore of White, Koch, Kelly & McCarthy, P.A., Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, for Petitioner-Appellant. 

Margaret M. Breinholt, Acting Assistant General Counsel, United 

States Department of Agriculture (James Michael Kelly, Associate 

General Counsel, and Sheila Novak, Attorney, United States 

Department of Agriculture, with her on the briefs), for 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Before KELLY and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.t 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

Myles C. Culbertson seeks review of a final order of the 

Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) , 

which imposed civil sanctions upon him for aiding in the 

interstate movement of cattle in violation of the Contagious 

Cattle Disease Act (CCDA), 21 U.S.C §§ 111, 120 and 122, and 

t The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting.by designation. 

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 1 
various regulations, 9 C.F.R. §§ 78.1-78.44 (1995) .1 We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2342(2) and reverse. 

Background 

Mr. Culbertson is a rancher and farmer who occasionally works 

as a cattle broker. In early 1987, Mr. Culbertson learned that 

Mr. M.S. Major, Jr. of New Mexico was interested in selling 

approximately 600 head of cattle. Mr. Culbertson agreed to act as 

a "go-between" for Mr. Major and, as such, assumed the 

responsibility of finding a suitable buyer for the cattle, but not 

arranging health certification or transportation of the animals. 

Tr. (Culbertson) at 228-30. Mr. Culbertson entered into formal 

negotiations with Jeff Weber, a broker for another rancher Eugene 

Miller. Mr. Culbertson transported Mr. Weber to Mr. Major's 

ranch, presented the cattle and, eventually, negotiated a sale 

price. Blood taken from the herd in February 1987 revealed the 

presence 14 suspected vectors of brucellosis. 

Although the record indicates that Mr. Culbertson was unaware 

of the infection, Tr. (Culbertson) at 235, 250; Tr. (Pemberton) at 

38, the owners were informed of this fact on March 4, 1987. Three 

days later, Mr. Major and several ranch employees loaded 53 bulls 

and 20 cows onto trucks for shipment to South Dakota. The trucks 

1 The CCDA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) 

to promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of any contagious, infectious or communicable 

disease of animals from one State to another. 21 U.S.C. § 111. 

The CCDA further empowers the Secretary to impose a civil penalty 

of not more than $1,000 upon any person who violates the 

provisions of the CCDA or regulations promulgated thereunder. 21 

u.s.c. § 122. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 2 
departed and, at the request of Mr. Major's son (Mr. Stuart 

Major), Mr. Culbertson and Mr. Weber followed the trucks about 50 

miles to a veterinary clinic in Los Lunas, New Mexico, to pick up 

health certificates. At the clinic, Mr. Culbertson received an 

envelope containing the certificates and delivered it to the 

truckers, who then departed on their interstate journey to South 

Dakota. Mr. Culbertson did this as a favor to Mr. Major, did not 

examine the health certificates and therefore was unaware that 

they were incomplete due to their failure to identify each animal 

by eartag. Tr. (Culbertson) at 250-51; Tr. (Griggs) at 172. Due 

to the faulty certificates, the shipment violated 9 C.F.R. 

78.9 (b) (3) (ii) .2 

Two days later, on March 9, 1987, Mr. Culbertson again drove 

Mr. Weber to the Major ranch where the remaining cattle were 

loaded for shipment to Nebraska. However, the shipment to 

Nebraska was canceled when it was determined that Mr. Weber could 

not obtain entry into South Dakota for the first shipment due to 

the presence of the suspected vectors. Several weeks later, on 

April 8, 1987, Mr. Culbertson learned that Dr. Ronald L. 

Pemberton, a USDA station epidemiologist in Albuquerque, had 

reclassified the suspect cattle as stabilized suspects, thereby 

enabling their interstate movement. Health certificates were 

issued and, for the sake of convenience, on April 12, 1987, Mr. 

2 Section 78.9(b) (3) (ii) requires that the cattle be moved only 

when accompanied by the appropriate certificate. The certificate 

must meet the requirements of 9 C.F.R. § 78.1. Specifically, the 

"certificate must show the official eartag number, individual 

animal register breed association registration tattoo . . . brand 

number, or similar individual identification of each animal 

to be moved .... " 9 C.F.R. § 78.1 (1995). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 3 
Culbertson drove Mr. Weber, Mr. Miller and Dr. Gregory Griggs, an 

accredited veterinarian, to the Major ranch to inspect the cattle 

once again. Mr. Culbertson had nothing whatsoever to do with the 

inspection, nor was he compensated for his chauffeuring 

activities. Later that day, and again on April 13th and April 

14th, 1987, the remainder of the herd, approximately 557 head of 

cattle, was loaded for shipment to Nebraska. However, at least 20 

of the animals in the Nebraska shipment were not tested for 

brucellosis within the thirty days prior to their interstate 

shipment, constituting an additional violation of 9 C.F.R. § 

78.9 (b) (3) (ii) .3 

In 1990, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) filed a complaint against Mr. Weber, 

Mr. Miller, Mr. M.S. Major, Mr. Stuart Major and Mr. Culbertson, 

claiming that the respondents "moved" cattle in violation of 9 

C.F.R. § 78.9(b) (3) (ii). On April 12, 1994, an administrative law 

judge (ALJ) entered an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil 

penalties against the Majors, but dismissing the case against Mr. 

Culbertson, finding that his involvement with the Majors' cattle 

transactions violated neither the CCDA nor the Regulations. The 

USDA appealed the ALJ's Decision and Order with regard to Mr. 

Culbertson to the Secretary, who referred the matter to the 

Judicial Officer (JO). The JO reversed the ALJ's Decision and 

Order by adding bracketed portions and concluding that 

3 Section 78.9(b) (3) (ii) in pertinent part prohibits the 

movement of test-eligible cattle to areas other than recognized 

slaughtering establishments or quarantined feedlots unless "[s]uch 

cattle are negative to an official test within 30 days prior to 

such interstate movement .... " 9 C.F.R. § 78.9 (b) (3) (ii). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 4 
[Mr. Culbertson did 'aid' in the movement by 

facilitating the meetings, transporting 

principals, escorting veterinarians, etc.] 

. . He did not [physically] move, ship, 

transport, deliver or receive them for 

movement, ... [but, Mr. Culbertson's 

activities fit squarely within the 

prohibitions against indirectly aiding, 

inducing, or otherwise causing movement as set 

forth in the 1986 amendments to the 

regulations] " 

JO Dec. and Order at 18. The JO assessed a penalty of $1500 

against Mr. Culbertson. 

Discussion 

We accord an agency broad discretion in administering the law 

and interpreting its enabling statute. Chevron U.S.A .. Inc. v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). An 

agency is entitled to even greater deference when it acts pursuant 

to an interpretation of regulations promulgated by the agency 

itself. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc. v. Babbitt, 24 F.3d 1263, 1267 

(lOth Cir. 1994) (citing Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965)). 

This principle of deference, however, is not absolute. The Court 

of Appeals need not accept an agency's interpretation of its own 

regulations if such interpretation is "'unreasonable, plainly 

erroneous, or inconsistent with the regulation's plain meaning'." 

Lewis v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 880, 882 (lOth Cir. 1993) (quoting Bar 

MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 738 (lOth Cir. 1993)). 

The issue is whether Mr. Culbertson "moved" cattle as that 

term is used in the Regulations. See 9 C.F.R. § 78.1 (1995). 

Section 78.1 defines "moved" as "[s]hipped, transported, 

delivered, or received for movement, or otherwise aided, induced, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 5 
or caused to be moved." 9 C.F.R. § 78.1. Until 1986, the 

definition of "moved" primarily focused on the transportation 

component of the activity. However, in 1985 the APHIS proposed to 

expand the definition of "moved" to impose legal responsibility 

upon other parties indirectly responsible for unauthorized 

movement. When adopting the expanded definition, the USDA 

expressly rejected comments that the definition of "moved" was too 

broad and indicated its desire to "extend legal responsibility for 

violations to persons indirectly responsible for unauthorized 

movement, i.e., a veterinarian who prepares false documents or a 

seller who promises to have animals tested but does not." 51 Fed. 

Reg. 32,574, 32,577 (1986). Under the expanded definition, 

liability under the Regulations requires an element of culpability 

together with direct involvement in the movement of cattle. 

According to the JO, Mr. Culbertson's transportation of persons 

and documents as a courier, coupled with his presence at the time 

of shipment from the Major ranch, sufficed to establish a basis 

upon which liability could be imposed under the Regulations. 

We disagree. In our opinion, the JO's interpretation of 

"moved" in this instance is insupportably broad. Here, the 

connection between the conduct complained of and the illegal 

shipment of cattle is too tenuous to support liability under the 

Regulations. Mr. Culbertson's participation in the transaction 

was limited to that of a broker. Tr. (Culbertson) at 230, 255. 

At no time did Mr. Culbertson own or control the cattle or 

influence the decisions prerequisite to their interstate movement. 

Id. at 228-30. He merely advised Mr. Major on the sale of his 

-6-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 6 
cattle, presented the cattle to potential buyers and negotiated a 

sale price. He did not possess the authority to arrange delivery 

of the cattle and did not assist in loading the cattle. Id. at 

228, 239. Although as a favor to Mr. Major he picked up the 

health certificates from the veterinarian and delivered them to 

the truckers, Mr. Culbertson had no obligation or responsibility 

to read or verify the certificates and did not know of the 

potential infection in the herd; instead, he reasonably relied 

upon those who owned and controlled the cattle to comply with the 

Regulations. Id. at 230, 235-36, 250. The decisions cited by the 

USDA do not support the imposition of liability for the acts 

complained of here but, rather, penalize persons who owned, 

controlled or in some way exercised discretion or responsibility 

over the movement of infected cattle, see, ~, Terry Horton and 

Johnny Horton, 50 Agric. Dec. 430 (1991) (purchasers); Dean Reed 

d/b/a/ Dean Reed Cattle Company, 52 Agric. Dec. 90 (1993) 

(purchasers and transporters), aff'd, 39 F.3d 1192, 1994 WL 596616 

(lOth Cir. Nov. 1, 1994) (unpublished opinion), or involve 

statutes and regulations that are not at issue here and are easily 

distinguishable on the facts, see, ~, Valkering U.S.A., Inc. v. 

USDA, 48 F.3d 305 (8th Cir. 1995) (Plant Quarantine Act and 

Federal Plant Pest Act), aff'g Unique Nursery and Garden Center, 

et al., 53 Agric. Dec. 377 (1994). 

In our opinion, Mr. Culbertson did not "move" cattle. To 

impose liability upon Mr. Culbertson for transporting parties and 

documents or witnessing the loading of infected cattle onto trucks 

suggests a strained interpretation of the Regulations. Using the 

-7-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 7 
logic employed by the USDA, the Secretary conceivably could impose 

liability upon the sale barn owner, or a chauffeur who transports 

the parties to the negotiations, or a mail courier who delivers 

the health certificates or a ranch hand who is present during the 

loading of the infected cattle. At some point, one's involvement 

in the movement of cattle simply becomes too attenuated to support 

liability. 

REVERSED. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 94-9570 Document: 01019279185 Date Filed: 11/01/1995 Page: 8