Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60009 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M A R V IN C L Y D E M A G E E , J R ., P l a i n tiff - A p p ell a n t v. U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , a c tin gth r o u g h th e F a r m S e r v ic e A g e n c y , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or th e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 3: 06- C V

- 541

B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * I. I n S e p t e mb e r1 9 9 9 , Ma r v i n C l y d e Ma g e e c o n v e y e dh i s 6 7 0

- a c r e fa r m, lo c a te din S m ith C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i, to th e F a r m S e r v ic e A g e n c y(“F S A”) in
sa t i sfac t i on o f

a $6 86, 349 d eb t. In 20 00, M r . M ageeent er ed i nt o af ive- year a gr ee m en t t o lease ba ck the pr op ertyf rom the F S A

. U n d er th e lease ag ree m en t, h e ha d t h e opti on t o pu rchase t h e property att h e end of t h e f ive- year t erm f

or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60009

2 a pr i c e that , i n ac c or d w i t h F SAr egul at i ons , w ou l d be det er m i ned by an in d e p e n d e n t a p p r a is a l. In 200 4, M r. M agee exp ress ed h i s i n t en t i on t o exerci se th e pu rchase opt i on, and a M i ss i ss i ppiSt at e Cer t i f i ed Apprai se rappr ai se d t he pr ope r t y at $89 9, 000
. Th e F S A ’ s R e v iew A p prai ser confirm ed the ap prai salaf t er det er m i ni ng t hati ts at i sf i ed t he U ni f

or m St andards of

Pro fess i on a lA pprai sa l P ra cti ce (“U S P A P ”). S ee 7 C .F .R . § 7 6 1 .7 (r e q u ir in gth a t a g e n c ya p p r a is a ls
c o m p lyw ith th e s ta n d a r d s co n ta in e din th e U S P A P ). C ont endi n g th a tt he appr ai sa lw as i nf l at ed, M r . M ageet oo k an ad m i n i st rat ive ap pea lt o t h e N a ti on alA pp eal s D ivi si on (“ N A D ” ) of t h e U n i t ed S t ates D epa rt m en tof A gri cul t u re. Ahea ri n g w as t h en hel d i n w h i ch h e argu ed th a t the com pa rabl e sal es r el i ed u pon by the app rai ser w ere not t h e best avail abl e. H e a l soar gued t hatt he ti m beron t he pr ope r t y w as val ued t oo hi gh andt h a ts o m e o f

t h e a p p r a i s e r ’ s c a l c u l a t i o n s we r e i n c o r r e c t
. T h e Hea r i ng O f f i cer af f i rm ed the ap prai sal

. M r. M agee t h en exerci sed h i s r i gh tt o a revi ew b yth e D ir e c to ro f th e N A D

. S ee 7 C. F. R. § 1 1. 9. T h e D i r e c t o ra f f i r m e d t he H e ar i ng O f

f i c e r ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n. M r . M ag e e t he n f

i l e d an ac t i o n i n fe de r al c o ur t s e e ki ng r e vi e w of t he ap pr ai s al , bu tsh o r t l y t he r e af t e rhe r e que s t e d t hati tb e di s m i s s e d wi t ho ut p r eju d ic e . H e file das e c o n da c tio n , th e o n e u n d e r ly in gth is a p p e a l, in M i ssi ssi pp ist ate c ou rt
. I n t h e capti on of hi s c om p la in t, he l i st ed G eorge W

. Bush andt he U ni t e d St at e s G o ve rnm en ta s de fe nda nt s . The c o m pl ai nt i m pl i c at e d a l lb r anc he s o f t he fe de r alg o ve r nm e nta nd s everalpr e vi o us presi den t i aladm i n i st rat i on s. A l l , h e assert ed, h ad conspir ed t o defr au d hi m of hi s G od- given r i ghtt o li fe, l iber t y, and t he purs ui tof happi nes s. The ex ec ut ive b ra n ch , h e claim ed , h a d fai l ed to k ee p food p ri ces stab l e an dn eg l ected i ts du ty t o keep farm ers, l i ke h i m sel f, f i n an ci all y st rong. Th e U n i t ed S t ates C on gress, he ar gued, ai ded t hi s f r aud by subs i di zi ng m ega- far m s. Fi nal l y, he as se r t ed t hatN o. 09- 60009

3 t he f ede r alj udi c i ar y, undu l y i nf l uence d by the U niver sit y o f C hi c ago Law Sc ho o l , ha d b e e n wi l l i ng ac c o m pl i c e s i n t hi s i nj us t i c e . Fort he s e w r o ngs , he
s o u gh t$ 2 , 3 7 6 , 2 9 2 i n d a ma g e s a n da n i nj u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n gt h e s a l e o f t h e fa r m. The FSAr e m o ve d t he a c t i o n t o t he U ni t e d St at e s D i s t r i c tCour tf o rt he Sout her n D i st r i c tof

M i ss i ss i ppi

. The F SAthen f i l ed a m ot i on see ki ng di sm i ss al or, i n t h e al t erna t ive, sum m ary j u dg m en t
. T h e courtgran t ed the F S A ’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t
. M r. M agee n ow app eal s. II. T h e f i rst of h i s t w o cl ai m s soug h t revi ew of t h e agen cy’ s app rai sal

. W h en federalcourt s r evi ew an F S Ad et erm i n ati on , w e are r equ i red t o app l y a st an da rd t hatg ive s g r e atde fe r e nc e t o t hatagen cy’ s r ul i ng; w e c an s e ta s i de a n FSA d e te r m in a tio n o n lyif i ta c t e d in a n a rb itr a r yo rca p r ic io u s m a n n e r , o rn o t in
a c c o r dw ith t h e la w . Ki nde rCanalCo. v . Jo hanns , 493 F

. 3d 543 , 547 ( 5th C i r. 2007) (c i t i ng t he A dm i ni st r at ive Proc edur e Act , 5 U

. S. C

. § 701 e ts e q. ). M r . M ageebo r e the bur den o f p rovi ng t hatthe $899, 000 appr ai sa lw as e r r o n e o u s , see7 C. F. R

. § 11. 8( e) , ye t he has of fer ed not hi ng t hat i ndi c at es t hat t he a ppr ai s alm us tb e di s r e ga r de d. W e , l i ke t he di s t r i c tcou rt , m u s tc o nc l ude t her ef or e thathe has fai l ed t o s how t he c ourts th a t t he FS A ’ s dec i si on w as arbi t rary or capri ci ou s. T h e se con d cl a i m i s ba sed u p on va ri ou s p oli ci es o f th e fed era lgo ve rn m en t,
w h i ch h e asser t s depressed his farm i n com e. H ad i t n ot been f or t h ese pol i ci es, h e a r g u e s , h e w o u ldh a v e e a r n e do v e rtw o m illio n d o lla r s m o r e t h a n h e a c tu a lly d id

. H e r e is alis t o f s o m e o f th e p o lic ie s a n de v e n t s t h a th e b la m e s fo rh is
r eve nue sho r t fal l : ( 1) a g r ai n em bar go pl ac ed byt he U ni t ed Stat es i n 1980; ( 2) th e en tran ce of m i l l i on s of il l eg a lali en s i n to the U n itedS tates; ( 3 ) th e N orth A m erican F ree Trad e A greem en t ; ( 4) t h e fai l u re of t h e U n i t ed S t ates go ve r nm e ntt o a de qua t e l y e nf o r c e a nt i t r uststa t ut e s ; a nd ( 5) t he fail ur e o f t he S ecret ary of

A gri cul t u re t o m ai n t ai n m arket c on di t i on s favorab l e t o farm ers.N o. 09- 60009

4 M r . M agee ’ s c l ai m f

ordam ages , bas ed on pol i c i es of t he go ver nm entt hat
o nl y hav e b r o adg e ne r ala ppli c ab i l i t y, ha s no m e r i t
. W e therefo r e a f f i r m t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. III. F or t h e above reason s, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourti s AF F I RMED.