Honora bl e Robert H. Clela

nd, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T RE CO M M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0185n.06 F iled: Marc h 9, 2007 No. 06-3350 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

KIM BEN NE TT, Respondent-

Appellant , v. UNI TE D S TA TE S DE P AR TM EN T OF AG RI CU LTU RE , Petitioner-Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F R OM AN OR DE R OF T HE S E C R ETARY, UNI T E D S TATES DEPA RTMENT OF AG RI CU L TU RE OP IN ION

BEFORE: KEITH and McK EAGU E, Circuit J u d ges; and CLEL AND, Distr ict Judge. * McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. Appellant Kim B ennett (“ Be nnett”) a ppeals a decision of the Secre tary of Agric ulture (the “Secr etar y ”) finding him in violation of t he Horse P rotec tion Act. For the re asons that follow, we aff irm the dec ision of the Secre tary

. I. BACKG ROUND Be nnett has trained and bred Tenne ssee Walking Horses since 1980. He ha s a AAAjudge ’s license w ith the National Horse Show Comm ission, and a traine r’s lice nse with the Walke rs Tra ining Association, both in good sta nding. B ennett and his wife , who is also a license d trainer and judg e,

a dv ise d some a c qu a int anc e s, no t par tie s to this ca se , to pur c ha se Th e Du c k, and in 2 00 2 th e B e nn e ttsNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 2 - beg an tra ining The Duck. The Duck is a stallion and a previous wor ld gr and cha mpion, and Be nnett’s goal was to prepa re The Duck to win another c hampionship at the 64th Annual Tenne ssee Walking Hor se National Celebration Show in Shelby ville, Tennesse e in August of 2002. On August 26, 2002, Benne tt entere d The Duc k as a co ntender in the competition at the Celebration that day . As a bre eding stallion, The Duck had a ne rvous temper ament; he did not like strang ers a

nd was e asily

excited when around ot her horses. There fore , Be nnett, who was to ride The Duck in the c ompetition, waited until the horse inspection ar ea w as empt y o f o t h er horses be fore br ing ingTh e Du c k to be ins pe c te d. Mark Th oma s, a

“ de sig nate d q ual if

ied pe rs on ” lic e ns e d to inspect horse s for violation of the fede ral Horse Protection Act and employ ed by the private ly -run National Hor se Show Commis sion, conducted a pre- show inspect i o n o f The D uck to deter mine whether The Duc k had bee n illegal l y “sored” to enha nce his g ait. Thomas g ave T he Duc k the highe st possibl e scor e for

his ge nera l appea

ranc e, his locomotion, and his rea ction to pa lpation. T he Duck wa s approve d for e x hibition, and Benne tt led him to t he wa rm-up ar ea. On hi s w ay

to th e w ar

m- u p ar e a , B e n n e tt

w a s s to p p e d

b y D r . M ic h a e l Gu e dr o n , a

United States De p ar t ment of Ag riculture ( “USDA” ) vete rinaria n authorized by

the Secr etar

y to inspect ho rs e s f or vio latio ns of

the Horse Pr ote c tio n A c t. D r. Gu e dr on dis pla y e d a pp ro pr iate c re de nti a ls ind ic a tin g thi s a

uth or ity , o f whic h B e nn e tt wa s a lso pr e vio us ly awa re . D r. Gu e dr on

tol d B e nn e tt t o return T he Duc k to the inspection are a for a sec ond inspection; he did not volunteer a n explanation for this instruction, nor provide one when Be nnett asked. Be nnett complied i nitially , but when he observe d Dr. Gue dron palpating The Duck’ s left front pa stern in a manne r B ennett believe d to be intended to provoke a “sor e” r esponse f rom a horse that was not sore, he led The D uck aw ay fromNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 3 - Dr. Gue dron. Dr. Guedron a sked whether B ennett we re r efusinginspection; he re sponded, “N o, I ’m not. I ’m just asking that y ou inspect the horse proper ly .” Tr. at 216. Also prese nt was Dr. L

y nn Bour g eois, another

USDA vete ri n ar y m edica l office r. Dr. Bour g eois was a lso the “show vete rinaria n,” mea ning that he was the veterinarian in char g e of the show, and wa s responsible to over see D r. Guedr on, other fe dera l inspectors, and the desig nated qualified pe rsons. Dr. B ourg eois asked B ennett whe ther he would allow Dr. Guedron to finish the ins pe c tio n. B e nn e tt r e pli e d, “ No t D r. Gu e dr on .” Tr

. a t 16 0. B e nn e tt r e qu e ste d th a t D r. B ourg e ois inspect the horse himself, but D r. Bour g eois would not. Be nnett never ag ree d to allow Dr. Gue dron to complete the inspec tion, and eventua lly ever yone lef t; The Duck did not compe te. The USDA took no further action re g ardingthis incident until April 13, 2004, when a n administrator for the Anim al and Plant Hea lth I nspection S ervic e (the “APHI S”) filed a complaint under the Horse Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1821-1831, wit h the S ecr etar y . The c omplaint alleg ed that Be nnett had re fused to allow a repr esentative of t he S ecr etar y to inspect The Duck, in violation of 15 U. S.C. §§ 18 24 (9 ), 18 23 (e ). Th e Ad min ist rativ e L aw J ud g e (“ AL J”) be fo re wh om the c a se

wa s argue d f

ound tha t th e USD A h a d n ot met its bu rd e n o f p ro vin g a

vio latio n o f t

he Ho rs e Protection Act by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e bec ause i t had not shown that Dr. Gue dron’s inspection was pe rfor

med “in a r easona

ble manner .” AL J Opinion at 10-11. The USDA a

ppeale d the AL J ’s dec ision to a J udicial Off icer of the Sec reta

ry . The Judicial Offic er rever sed t he AL J , finding Be nnett’s belief that Dr. Gue dron wa s perf orming his inspection

unrea sonably

“not re levant” to the que stion o f whether B ennett violated 15 U.S.C. § 1824(9). Opinion of Secre tary

at 17. T h e J u d i ci al Off icer found that B ennett had r efuse d to allow Dr.No. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

Both the U SDA here and the Tenth Circuit in McNamar v . Apfel , 1 72 F .3 d 7 64 , 7 66 (1 0th 1 Cir

. 19 99 ), wh ic h the USD A qu ote s, ina c c ur a te ly c la im that th e Sup re me Cou rt ’s op ini on

inThomas J e ffe rso n U

niv e rsi ty holds that courts def

er to ag ency

interpre tations of bo th the statut e s and regulations they

administer. Tho ma s J

e ffe rso n U

niv e rsi ty ref ers only to the interpre tations of regulations. A fede ral a g ency ’s interpre tation of statutes is subject t o a less def ere ntial standard, a s set forth be low. The Judicial Office r “se rv es as the de leg ate f or the Sec reta

ry of Ag riculture f

or judicial 2 matters, and ha s final administrative author ity to decide the Depa

rt ment’s [USDA’s] cases . . . .” Rowland v. USDA , 43 F.3d 1112, 1114 ( 6th Cir. 1995) (citing 7 C.F.R. § 2.35). - 4 - Gu e dr on to i ns pect The Du c k, and the re fo re de c ide d th e re ha d b e e n a vio latio n o f t

he Ho rs e Protection Act. Opinion of Sec reta ry at 19-20. The J udicial Off icer there fore order ed B ennett to pay a $2,200 fine , and dis qualified him for one y ear from “show ing, e x hibiting, or e nteringany horse, direc tly or in d i re ctly

throug h any

ag ent, employ ee, or

device , and fr om manag ing, judg ing, or otherwise pa

rticipating in any horse show, horse ex hibition, horse sale, or horse auction.” O pinion of Secr etar

y at 23, 27. B ennett now a ppeals that de cision. II. RE F USA L OF AN UN RE ASO NA BLE I NSP EC TIO N “[C] ourts are to ‘g ive substantial defe renc e to an a gen cy ’s i nterpre tation of its own regulations.’” St. Fran c is H e alt h Ca reCtr . v . S

ha lal a , 205 F.3d 937, 943 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Tho ma s Je ffe rso n Uni v . v . S

ha lal a , 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994)). The Sec reta ry ’s interpre tation may 1 2 be overturne d “if it is ‘ar

bitrary , capr icious, an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in ac corda nce with the law,’” but “if ‘it is a re asonable regulatory interpre tation w e must de fer to it.’” Id. at 944 (q u o t i n g Thomas Jefferson Univ. , 5 12 U. S. at 51 2; Shalala v. Guernsey M emorial Hosp. , 5 14 U. S. 87, 94-95 (1995) ).No. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 5 - Reg ardings t at u t es , howeve r, cour ts give less defe renc e to an a g ency ’s interpre tation. To “asse ss[ ] an ag ency ’s con struction of a statute that it adminis ters,” c ourts perf orm the two-pa

rt analy sis set forth in Chevron U.S.A. v . Natural Resources De f en s e Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Harris v. Olszewski , 442 F.3d 456, 466 ( 6th Cir. 2006). That ana ly sis inquires: (1) “ha s Co n g r e s s ‘ d ir e c tl y

s p o k e nto th e p r e c is e qu e s ti o na t issue ?’” an d ( 2 ) “ is ‘ th e a g e n c y ’ s an s w e r [] based on a

permissible construc tion of the statute? ’” Id. (a l t er at i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842-43). The Hor se Protection Ac t prohibits “[t] he failure or ref usal to permit acc ess t o or copy ing of

rec ords, or the f

ailure or ref usal to permit entry or inspection, as require d by [15 U.S.C. § 1823].” 15 U. S.C. § 1 82 4( 9) . T his “ ins pe c tio n” is e xpla ine d in § 1 82 3: [T]he Se c re tary

[of Ag ri c ult ur e ], or any re pr e se ntativ e of

the S ecre tary

du ly de sig nate d b y

the Se c re tary , may

ins pe c t any

ho rs e sh ow , h or se e xhibi tio n, or ho rs e sale or a uction or any

horse at any

such show, exhibiti on, sale, or a uction. . . . Eac h such inspection shall be commence d and complete d with rea sonable promptness a nd shall be conduc ted within rea sonable limits and in a rea sonable manne r. Id. § 1 82 3( e ). Th e De pa

rtme nt o f A g ri c ult

ur e ’s re g ulatio ns fu

rt he r p ro vid e : Eac h horse owne r, exhibit or, traine r, or other person having cu s t o dy

of, or responsibility

for, a ny horse at any

horse s h o w, horse exhi bition, or horse sale or a uc tio n, sh a ll a llo w a

ny APH I S re pr e se ntativ e to re a so na bly ins pe c t suc h hor se a t a ll r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s an d

p l a c e s t h e A P H IS r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m ay d e s i g n a t e . . . . A P H IS re p r e s e n tati v e s w il l n o t g e n e r a ll y o r r o u ti n e ly d e la y o r in te r r u p t a c tu a l i n d ividua l classes or perf ormanc es at horse shows, horse e x hibitions , or horse sales or a uctions for the purpose of examining horses, but they may do so in ex traordina

ry situations

. . . . 9 C.F.R. § 11.4(a)

.No. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 6 - B oth the statut e and

the re g ulatio n a dd

re ss the “ re a so na

ble ne ss” of an ins pe c tio n. Th e statut e require s “ reasonable promptness,” “ reasonable limit s,” and a “ reasonable ma

n n e r , ” an d

the

re g ulatio n s tate s th a t U SDAof fi c ia ls w ill “ reasonably i n s p e c t ” a t “ reasonable times and place s.” Howeve r, neither

expressly provides that a trainer or owner may ref use inspection due to a lac k of

s u c h r e a s o n a

b l e n e s s . T h e J u d i c i a l O f

f i c e r ’ s o p i n i o nd o e s n o te x p r e s s l y a d dr e s s t h e r e g u l a t i o n . It do e s e xpla in h is i nte rp re tatio n o f t he statut e ’s re a so na

ble ne ss r e qu ir e me nts : The fa ilure of a

repr esentative of the Sec ret ary of Ag riculture to c onduct an inspection in a re asonable manner , as re quired by section 4(e ) of the H orse Protec tion Act (15 U .S.C. § 1823(e)), may be used to challeng e the results of the inspec tion, but may no t be us e d a s a

ba sis to r e fu se to p e rm it c om pl e tio n o f t he ins pe c tio n o r a s a basis to r equire inspection by another repr esentative of the Sec reta ry of Ag riculture. Opinion of Secre tary

at 17-18. At oral a rgument, the USDA conc eded that there mig ht exi st ex treme c ircumstance s under which a tr ainer

or ex hibitor could refuse an inspection due to its unrea sonablene ss without viol ating § 1 82 4( 9) . T hu s, the c ourt is n ot p re se nte d w iththe qu e sti on of wh e the r i t w ou ld e ve r be pe rm iss ibl e for a n exhibi tor to ref

use an inspec tion be ca u s e i t was unre asonable . The c ourt nee d only decide wh e the r, in t

his c a se , B e nn e tt’ s r e fu sa l of an i ns pect io n h e be lie ve d to be unre a so na ble wa s a violation of the Horse Protection Act. Be cause the statute itself does not specify whether the “re asonable ness” lang uag e provide s

a ba sis fo r o wn e rs and

tr a ine rs to re fu se ins pe c tio n, Con g re ss ha s n ot “ dir e c tly sp ok e n to the pr e c ise question at i ssue” in this case , the first question under the Chevron analy sis. The second Chevron question is whether the USDA’s interpr etatio n i s “base d on a per missibl e construc tion of the statute.” Ha rri

s explains that “[i] f so and if Congr ess has g iven the ag ency authority to interpret theNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 7 - statute, a fe dera l court will defe r to the ag ency ’s interpre tation.” 4 4 2 F. 3 d at 4 6 6 (c i t i n g Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842-43). The S upreme Court expl ained in Smiley v . Citi bank , 5 1 7 U

. S. 7 3 5 , 7 4 0

- 4 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , th a t “ [w ]e

acc ord def

ere nce to a g encie s under Chevron

. . . b e c a us e of a pr e sumpt ion

that Co ng re ss, wh e n it le ft a mbi g uit y in a statut e me ant f

or imp le me ntatio n b y

an a g e nc y , und e rs too d that the ambi g uit y

wo uld be re so lve d, fi rs t and

fo re mos t, b y

the a g e nc y , a

nd de sir e d the a g e nc y

(r a the r t ha n th e c ourt s) to possess whateve r deg ree of discre tion the a mbiguity allows.” Thus, even if the statutory

“g ap for the ag ency

to fill,” and the attendant “de leg ation of authority” for the ag ency

to interpret the statute,

are “implicit rather t h an explicit,” “a c ourt may not substit ute its own construction of a statutory provision f

o r a re asonable interpre tation made by the administrator of a

n ag ency .” Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843-44. I n this case, § 1823( e) makes cle ar that the i nspection required by § 1824(9) is to be c arr ied out by the S ecr etar

y of Agric ulture or his repr esentative. Thus, the i nspection described in § 1824(9) is impl emented by

the USDA, and unde r Chevron , th e USD A pr op e rl y sh ou ld re so lve the a mbi g uit y in § 1824(9). Thus, provide d the J udicial Off icer ’s i nterpre tation of t he st atute is “per missibl e,” the panel should defe r to his interpretation. Ha rri s , 4 42 F .3 d at 46 6; se e als o Na t’ l Ca ble& Te le c om ms . As s’ n v . B ra nd

X In ter net Se rv

s. , 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005) (“ I f a statute is ambiguous, a nd if the implementing a g ency ’s construc tion is reasonable , Chevron require s a fe deral court to ac cept the ag ency ’s construc tion of the statute, eve n if the ag ency ’s re ading differ s from what the cour t believes is the best statutory

interpre tation.”).No. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

The USDA c oncede d at ora l argument that if, for ex ample, a USDA veterinarian “ start[ed] 3 towards the horse’ s hoof” w ith “a big knife,” and the owne r there fore led the horse awa y from the inspection, the owne r would not have violated § 1824(9). - 8 - The Judicial Office r dete rmined that B ennett’s “ belief that Dr. Gue dron wa s not conducting the inspection in a re asonable manner and [Benne tt’s] reque st for inspection by” Dr . Bour g eois “a re not releva nt to [ Be nnett’s] viol ation of . . . the Hor se Protection Ac t,” which position the USDA maintains on appea l. Opinion of Secre tary at 17. This inter

pretation is reasonable . As the USDA po int s o ut in its br ie f, thi s in te rp re tatio n f ur the rs the purp os e s o f t

he Ho rs e Pr ote c tio n A c t. Pe rm itt inga

tr a ine r o r o wn e r t o r e fu se in sp e c tio n b a se d o n h is o wn a sse rt ion that an in sp e c tio n is

unrea sonable, in the a

bsence of circumstance s “we ll outside the norm of r egularity in the inspection pr oc e ss” to whic h the US DA re fe rr e d at or a l argume nt, wo uld po te nti a lly

a llo w tra ine rs to a

vo id 3 dis c ov e ry of “ so ri ng ,” the pr e ve nti on

of wh ic h is the purp os e of the Ho rs e Pr ote c tio n Ac t. 15 U. S.C. § 1822. Beca use § 1824(9) does not expli citly state the c onsequenc es of the r equire ment than an ins pe c tio n b e re a so na

ble , a nd be c a us e the USD A’ s in te rp re tatio n o f t he re a so na

ble ne ss l angua g e is pe rm iss ibl e , th is c ourt mus t a c c e pt the USD A’ s de te rm inatio n that an e xhibi tor vio late s th e Ho rs e Protection Act if he re fuses a n inspection that is not eg reg ious, based on his subjective be lief that the inspection is unrea sonable. III. SUBS TANTIAL EVIDENCE Th is c ourt

“ re vie w[s ] an

a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on of the [Sec re tary] und e r t he [Ho rs e Protection Act ] t o d etermine whether the prope r leg al standar ds were employ ed and substantial

e v id e n c e s u

p p o rts th e d e c is io n .” B o b o v. USDA , 52 F.3d 1406, 1410 ( 6th Cir. 1995) (interna lNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 9 - qu o t at i o n s o m i t t ed ) (s ec o n d an d t h i rd al t er at i o n s i no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Gray v . USDA , 39 F.3d 670, 6 7 5 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) )

. “ Su b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e me an s ‘ mo r e th an a s c inti ll a b u t le s s th an a preponde ranc e’ of

the evidenc e,” a

nd “‘must be ba sed upon t h e re co rd t aken as a whole .’” Id. (q u o t i n g Elliott v. Administrator, Animal & Plant Health Inspec tion Serv. , 9 90 F .2 d 1 40 , 1 44 (4 th Cir . 1 99 3) ; Gray , 39 F.3d at 675). Un l i k e a f

e d e r a l c o u rt , a Ju d i c i a l O f f i c e r , “ s i t t i n g i n r e v i e w o f an A L J’ s i n i t i a l d e c isi on , is authorized by

statute to substit ute [his] judgme nt for that of the AL J .” Parchman v . USDA , 852 F.2d 8 5 8 , 8 6 0 n . 1 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Farrow v. USDA , 760 F.2d 211, 213 ( 8th Cir. 1985)) (interna l qu otatio ns omi tte d) . Howev er, whe re fi nd ing s o f f a c t are ba se d o n d e te rm inatio ns of wi tne ss

cre dibilit y , the AL J ’s finding s are g iven g reater weig ht. Rowland v. USDA , 4 3 F .3 d 1 11 2, 11 14 (6 th Cir. 1995). The H o r s e Pr o te c ti o nA c t, a s n o te d a b o v e , p r o h ib it s th e “ r e f

u s a l t o p e r

mi t .

. . in s p e ction” of a hor se in an e x hibition. 15 U.S .C. § 1824(9). As § 1823(e) clar ifies, this is an inspection by “the Secre tary , or any

repr esentative of the Sec reta ry duly desig nated by

the Secr etar

y ,” provided he “pre sent[] appropr iate cr edentials.” I t is not disputed here that Dr. Guedr on possessed and pr esente d the appr opriate c rede ntials, or that he wa s a duly desig nated r epre sentative of the Secre tary of Ag riculture. B ennett ar g ues that he “neve r re fused to allow Dr . Guedr on to inspect the horse

. . . . Be nnett’s only

reque st was that the USDA c onduct its inspection re as o n ably and prope rly

under direc tion of the H[orse] P [rotection] A[ct] .” Appe llant’s Br ief at 19. Howeve r, this contention ref lects only some of what happene d. As Be nnett acknow ledg es in his own statement of fa cts, he wa s first asked by Dr. Gue dron whe ther h e was re fusing anNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 10 - inspection; he re sponded, “N o, Iam not. I am onl y asking that y ou inspect t he horse proper ly .” Tr. at 316, qu ote d in Ap pe lla nt’ s Br ie f at 10

. Whe n Dr . Bo ur g e ois , the sh owve t, t he n “ a sk e d B e nn e tt whether he would allow Dr. Gue dron to complete his inspec tion of the horse[,] Bennett re plied, ‘Not Dr. Gue dron.’” Id. Thus, Be nnett h imself admits that he expressly ref used to allow Dr. Guedron to inspect The Duc k. The true focus o f h i s ar gu m ent is that he “ne ver r efuse d Dr. Gue dron the opportunity

to re as on ab ly

inspect the horse .” Appe llant’s Br ief at 22. As discussed above , the J udicial Off icer permissibly

conclude d that the exhib i t o r’ s belief reg ardingthe re asonable ness o f an i n spection under such circ umstances a s exi sted here is not rele vant to the ques t i on of whe ther a trainer has re fused the inspe ction. Thus, by stating that Dr. Guedr on was not per

mitted to ins pect The Duck, e ven thoug h he invited Dr. B ourg eois to in spect him , Be nn e tt re fu se d to allo w a dul y a pp ointe d r e pr e se ntativ e of the Se c re tary

to i ns pe c t a

ho rs e , in violation of the Horse Protection Act. Even if B ennett had not c oncede d that he would not allow Dr. Guedr on to inspect The D uck, “upon the r ecor d taken a s a whole,” there was substantial evidence that he re fused inspec tion. Dr. Bour g eois, the show vet, testified that Be nnett would not allow Dr. Guedr on to inspect The Duck. Mark Thoma s, the desig nated qua lified person who initially inspected ( and pa s s ed ) The D uck, testified, “I just saw that Dr. Guedr on started his inspec tion and things didn’t g o to suit Mr. Benne tt.” Tr. at 55. When aske d whether Be nnett allowed Dr . Gue d ro n t o i n s pect The Duck, Thoma s

re s p o n d e d , “ N o tw h i l e Iw a s t h e r e . ” T r . a t5 8

. L o n n i e M e s s i c k , ano f f i c i a l o f t h e N a t i o n a l H o r se Sho w C omm iss ion

wh o w a s v ide ota

pin g ins pe c tio ns on

Au g us t 26 , 2 00 2, te sti fi e d th a t B enn e tt

wo ul d no t allow D r. Gu e dr on to f ini shins pe c tin g Th e Du c k. Ad dit ion a lly , L e ig h B e nn e tt ( Ki mNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 11 - B e n n e t t ’ s w i f

e ) t e s t i f i e d t h a tB e n n e t tt o l d

D r . G u e dr o nt h a t“ i f

h e c o u l d n o ti n s p e c th i mp r o p e r l y, t h a th e [ B e n n e t t ] d i dn ’ tw an th i m [ D r . G u e dr o n ] t o i n s p e c th i m[ T h e D u c k ]

. ” T r . a t 3 7 0

. S i m i l ar l y, Be nnett testified t hat “I ref used hi m [Dr. Guedr on] t o inspect him [The Duck] improperly .” Tr. at 458. Thus, the re cord indicates t h at s ubstantial evidenc e supported the J udicial Off icer ’s conclusion that B ennett re fused to allow Dr . Guedr on t o co m plete his inspection of The Duck. Substant i al evidence nee d not even be a “pr eponder ance ” of the evidenc e. Bobo , 52 F.3d at 410. Her e, fiv e ey ew i tnesses ag ree that Be nnett would not allow Dr. Gue dron to inspect The Duck. Be nnett and his wife w ere both car eful to say that Be nnett would not allow the inspection un le ss Dr. Guedr on would conduct it “pr operly .” Clear ly , Be nnett’s position is t hat he objected to Dr. Guedr on’s inspection only beca use it wa s being conducte d improperly

. Howeve r, eve n Be nnett and his wife do not claim that B ennett allowe d Dr. Gue dron to inspect the hor se. B e nn e tt a lso argue s th a t th e AL J’s de te rm inatio ns sh ou ld be g ive n part ic ula r we ig ht b e c a

us e they are based on c redibility

deter minations. Benne tt is correc t that the fa ctfinding s of an AL J are g iven g reater we ight whe n they are based o n credibilit y

deter minations. I n this case, the A L J ’s opinion states in so many words that “I found Kim B ennett to be a c redible w itness.” AL J Opinion at 9. Howeve r, the J udicial Offic er’ s reve rsal was not ba sed on his disagree ment with the AL J ’s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t. B oth the AL J’s an d Jud ic ia l O ff ic e r’ s o pin ion s f

ound tha t B e nn e tt w a s w ill ingto have T he Duc k inspected a s long a s Dr. Guedr on did not perf orm the inspection. AL J Opinion atNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

Th e Se c re tary

of Ag ri c ult ure has also inv ok e d th is r ule in p ro c e e din g s und e r t he Ho rs e 4 Protection Act. In re David Tracy Bradshaw , 59 Ag ric. Dec

. 228, 2000 WL 799108, at *16 (June 14, 2000) (“ A par

ty ’s failure t o produce a witness, when it would be natural for that party to produce that witness, if the fact s k n o wn b y t h e witness had be en fa vorable , serve s to indicate, as a natura l infere nce, that the party

fea rs to produce the witness. . . . This principle has been f ollowed in many proce eding s befor e the United States D epar tment of Ag riculture . . . .” ). - 12 - 8; Opinion of Secre tary

at 15. Thus, the fa ct that cr edibility -base d fac tfindings of AL J s are g iven g reater we ight doe s not undermine the de cision of the Judi cial Of fice r in this case. Be nnett also argues that the USDA’s decision not to offer evidenc e fr om Dr. Gue dron him se lf le a ds to a n a dv e rs e inf

e re nc e re g ard ingwh a t suc h ev ide nc e wo uld have sh ow n. Th is a dv e rs e inf e re nc e ari se s in

the Sixth C ir c uit

un de r t he so -c a lle d “ mis sin g wi tne ss r ule ” wh e n a

pa rt y fa ils to call a w itness “pec uliarly

within [ his] power to produce ” and whose testim ony would “eluc idate the transac tion.” Un ite d S

tates v . B lak

e mo re , 4 8 9 F. 2 d

1 9 3 , 1 9 5 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 7 3 ) ( qu o t i n g W ynn v. U nited States , 397 F.2d 621, 625 (D.C. Cir. 1967) ) (inter nal quotations omitt ed) ( alteration in original). 4 At the time of the proc eeding s below, Dr. Guedron ha d left the USDA. Even assumi ng that he wa s a witness pec uliarly within the USDA’s power to produce , the adve rse infe renc e is not helpful to Be nnett. Be nnett’s princi p al co ntention throug hout has bee n that Dr. Gue dron wa s inspecting The Duc k in an unre asonable manner . The AL J found that the inspec tion was

unrea sonable; the USDA ma intains that reasona bleness wa s irrele vant in this case . Thus, had Dr

. Guedr on admitted on the stand that his inspec tion wa s unrea sonable, the case would not be alter ed. Be nnett’s case does not f

ail for lack of evidenc e reg ardingDr. Gue dron’s method of inspe ction, but beca use the USDA inter

prets § 1824(9) as re quiring an exhibitor to permit ins pection, ev en if he be lie ve s it

to b e unre a so na

ble , u nd e r s uc h c ir c ums tanc e s a s e xiste d h e re . E ve n g ra nti ngB e nn e ttNo. 06-3350

Benne tt v. USDA

- 13 - ever y infere nce in his favor, the Judicial Of fice r’s deter

mination that Benne tt violated the inspection require ment of the Hor se Protection Ac t is supported by substantial evidence

. IV . C ON CL USI ON For these re asons, the Judi cial Of fice r’s de cision that Be nnett violated t he Horse Protection Ac t is AF F IRM ED

.