N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ESTATE OF E. W

AYNE HAGE; W AYNE N. HAGE,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 17-15419

D.C . No. 2:07-c v-01154-GM N-VC F M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, W . FLETC HER , a n d TALLM AN, C i rc uit Judge s. W ayne N. Ha ge an d his la te fa the r E. W ayne Ha ge ’ s e sta te (“ the Esta

te ” ) a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt orde r awarding the Unite d Stat e s $587,294.28 in dam a ge s for the Ha ge s’ una uthoriz e d gra z i ng on fe de ra l la nd. 1 The distric t c ourt 

# F IL ED AUG 9 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. 1 B e c a use the distric t c o urt did not find the Esta te lia ble for dam a g e s , only M r. Ha ge ha s sta

nding to a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s da m a ge s a w ard.c a lc ulat e d the dam a g e s owe d to the B ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt (“ B LM ” ) for e a c h y e ar by

m ultiply ing the num

be r of c attle that the c ourt found M r. Ha ge owne d during tha

t y e ar by the num be r of m onths tha

t y e ar during whic h the c ourt found M r. Ha ge gra z e d the c a ttle on B LM la nd. It the n m

ultiplie d tha

t figure by the B LM ’ s rate for re pe a te d willful una uthoriz e d gra z ing unde r 43 C .F.R . § 4150.3(c ). The fe e s owe d to B LM for the pe riod be twe e n Nove m be r 2004 a

n d June 2011 am ounte d to $555,040.50. The fe e s owe d to the Unite d State s Fore st Se rvic e (the

“ Fore s t Se rvic e ” ) for the sa m e pe riod we re c a l c ulate d in a pa ra lle l m anne r utiliz ing the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s own re gula tions for una

uthoriz e d gra z ing fe e s, 36 C .F.R . § 222.50, a

nd tota l e d $11,791.34. The re m a ining sum

of $20,462.44 in the dam a ge s c a lc ulat e d by

the distric t c o urt re late s to M r. Ha ge ’ s una uthoriz e d gra z ing during thepe nde nc y

of his a ppe a l to the Unite d

State s Supre m e C ourt. Una uthoriz e d gra z ing on B LM la n ds is subje c t to fe e s. 43 C .F.R . § 4140.1(b)(1)(i) (prohibiting una uthoriz e d gra z ing on B L M -a dm iniste re d la nd); 43 C . F.R . § 4150.1 (providing tha t viola t ions of § 4140.1(b)(1)(i) c an be punishe d with c ivil a

nd c rim ina l pe na ltie s); 43 C .F.R . § 4150.3 (se tting fe e s for una uthoriz e d gra z ing on B LM -a dm iniste re d la nd). Fe e s a lso a

pply to una uthoriz e d gra z ing on Nationa l Fore s t Sy ste m

la nds m ana ge d by

the Fore st Se rvic e unde r 36 C .F.R . § 222.50(h). 2The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly a pplie d the se re gula

tions to c a l c ulate the fe e s tha t M r. Ha ge owe s. The distric t c ourt’ s findings re ga rding the num

b e r of c attle to whic h the fe e s a

pply we re re a sona

ble . Se e Holland Liv e

stoc k Ranc h v . Unite d State s , 655 F.2d 1002, 1006 (9th C irc . 1981) (“ [T] he fa c t tha t dam a g e s a

re not susc e ptible to pre c ise m e a s ure doe s not pre c lude re c o ve ry . . . the fa c t finde r is a llowe d to m a

ke a re a sona ble infe re nc e of da

m a ge s from

the fa c ts a dduc e d . . . so long a s the dam a ge s a

re not ba se d on spe c ulat ion or gue ss.” (c ita tions omitte d)). The distric t c ourt a l so c orre c tly a pplie d the B LM ’ s “ re pe ate d willful una uthoriz e d” ra te unde r 43 C .F.R . § 4150.3(c ) ra t he r tha n the ra te for non-willful or willful viola

tions unde r 43 C .F.R . §§ 4150.3(a) or (b). A viola tion is willful unde r 43 C .F.R . § 4150.3 if it is done inte ntiona lly

and in thea

bse n c e of “ g ood fa ith or innoc e nt m ista

ke .” H olland Liv e

stoc k Ranc h v . Unite d State

s , 655 F.2d 1002, 1006-7 (9th C ir. 1981) (quoting Eldon Brink e r hoff , 24 I.B .L.A. 324 (1976)). M r. Ha ge did not ha

ve a good fa ith be lie f in the le ga l ity of his graz ing a c tivitie s. Ne ithe r his fa

m ily ’ s re late d

c a se in the C ourt of Fe de ra l C la im s, se e , e .g., Hage

v . Unite d State s , 42 Fe d. C L. 249 (1998), nor the la w at the tim e of M r. Ha ge ’ s viola tions, se e , e .g., Hunte r v . Unite d State s , 388 F.2d 148, 154 (9th C ir. 1967) (holde r of stoc k

w a te r rights doe s not ha

ve right to the

a d ja c e nt fora ge ), supporte d a good fa ith be lie f in the le ga lity of his una uthoriz e d gra z i ng be twe e n 2004 a

nd 32011. M ore ove r, M r. Ha ge ’ s viola tions ove r the c o urse of se ve ra l y e ars we re c le arly “ re pe a te d.” M r. Ha ge ’ s viola tions we re thus “ re pe ate d willful a nd una uthoriz e d;” the ra t e provide d in 43 C .F.R . § 4150.3(c ) wa s a pplic a ble . W e AFFIRM the distric t c ourt’ s orde r.

4