*

The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District

Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

1

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0319P (6th Cir.)

File Name: 03a0319p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

H.C. MACCLAREN, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

-

N

No. 02-3006

On Appeal from an Order of the Secretary,

United States Department of Agriculture.

No. D-99-0012.

Argued: June 11, 2003

Decided and Filed: September 4, 2003 

Before: MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges;

SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.*

2 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS,

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly,

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENTOFAGRICULTURE,Washington, D.C.,for

Respondent. ON BRIEF: Stephen P. McCarron,

McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner H.C.

MacClaren, Inc. (MacClaren), a wholesale produce broker,

appeals a final order of the Secretary of Agriculture revoking

its license pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural

Commodities Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499s. The

Secretary determined that the sanction of license revocation

was appropriate after concluding that MacClaren had

committed sixty-one violations of PACA. Specifically,

MacClaren employees admitted to altering fifty-three United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA or “the agency”)

inspection certificates and issuing eight false accounts of sale

for a fraudulent purpose. MacClaren contends that in

imposing the sanction of license revocation, the Secretary

erred in failing to consider the remedial purpose of PACA and

all relevant circumstances and imposed a sanction that is

without justification in fact. For the reasons set forth below,

we affirm the decision of the Secretary. 
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

3

I.

MacClaren began doing business in the 1920s and was

issued a PACA license in 1974. Since 1974, MacClaren’s

license has been renewed annually. MacClaren operates out

of Detroit, Michigan, and is owned and managed by Gregory

MacClaren, president, director and fifty-one percent

stockholder, and Darrell Moccia, vice-president, director, and

forty-nine percent stockholder. In addition to Gregory

MacClaren and Darrell Moccia, during the relevant time

periodMacClaren employed four salespersons, Norman Olds,

Alan Johnston, Frederick Gottlob and Daniel Schmidlin, who

were paid on commission. All six individuals purchased

fruits and vegetables (perishable commodities) from shippers

throughout the country and resold the produce to local jobbers

and wholesalers. They worked in the same area with raised

dividers separating their desks and together handled about

400 transactions per month. 

Prior to the violations at issue, MacClaren had no record of

violations of PACA. During 1994 through 1996, however,

three MacClaren employees committed sixty-one violations

of PACA. Olds, Johnston and Gottlob admitted to altering

fifty-three inspection certificates resulting in underpayments

totaling $130,903.00 to twenty-two suppliers. In addition,

Olds and Gottlob admitted to issuing eight false accounts of

sale to seven suppliers resulting in underpayments of

$6,599.15. 

The admissions by MacClaren employees resulted from the

investigation of another company suspected of altering

inspection certificates. In December 1996, USDA

investigators visited MacClaren to examine MacClaren’s file

relating to a transaction with the company under

investigation. Upon examining the file, the investigators

discovered two copies of the same USDA inspection

certificate containing conflicting entries. Neither Gregory

MacClaren nor Darrell Moccia could explain the discrepancy.

4 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

1

The USDA concedes that MacClaren repaid “most but not all of the

underpayments.”

The investigators then reviewed thirty-six files and found

discrepancies in eleven of the files handled by Olds, Gottlob

and Johnston.

Gregory MacClaren and Darrell Moccia denied knowledge

of the alterations and told investigators that they wanted to

cooperate and investigate the matter internally. They initiated

an internal review and had their employees review all past

files for altered inspection certificates. The internal

investigation uncovered numerous additional altered

inspection certificates which Gregory MacClaren and Darrell

Moccia turned over to investigators. Olds, Gottlob and

Johnston voluntarily gave statements to the investigators

admitting that they had altered USDA inspection certificates

and denying that Gregory MacClaren or Darrell Moccia were

aware of their actions. Gottlob also admitted to issuing seven

false accounts of sale, and Olds admitted to issuing one such

false account.

Gregory MacClaren personally contacted the suppliers

affected by the altered inspection certificates and false

accounts to express MacClaren’s intent to make restitution.

According to MacClaren, the company returned almost one

hundred percent of the amounts it underpaid shippers as a

result of the alterations and false accountings.

1

Despite their admissions of improper conduct, MacClaren

continued to employ Olds and Gottlob on the condition that

they reimburse MacClaren for the restitution that it intended

to pay the shippers. In addition, Olds and Gottlob were

directed to call each shipper affected by the altered inspection

certificates, explain their actions and advise the shipper that

MacClaren intended to make restitution for any losses the

shipper suffered. Olds continued working for MacClaren, and
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

5

2

Gottlob obtained immunity from criminal prosecution in return for

his testimony at the USDA hearing. Olds testified at the hearing, but did

not receive immunity.

through paycheck deductions he reimbursed MacClaren for

the restitution on the inspection certificates he altered.

Gottlob, however, only continued working for MacClaren for

about a month and a half until he was terminated for poor

work performance. Gottlob did not repay MacClaren any of

the restitution amount. 

On June 17, 1999, the USDA issued a complaint charging

MacClaren with violating PACA by altering fifty-three

USDA inspection certificates and submitting false accounts

to seven suppliers. The Complaint requested that

MacClaren’s license be revoked due to its “willful, flagrant

and repeated violations” of PACA. On September 20 and 21,

2000, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James W. Hunt

conducted a hearing in Detroit, Michigan. In his decision and

order finding that MacClaren violated PACA as alleged in the

complaint, the ALJ noted that MacClaren “did not deny that

53 USDA inspection certificates had been altered.” He held

that because “these unlawful acts were committed by

[MacClaren’s] salesmen in the course of their employment,

they are deemed to be the acts of [MacClaren].” In deciding

the appropriate sanction for the violations, the ALJ found that

it had not been shown that MacClaren “was irresponsible or

unscrupulous and no evidence was provided to show that

license revocation or suspension would have a greater

beneficial effect on the industry than a monetary fine.”

According to the ALJ, MacClaren “acted responsibly when it

became aware of the fraudulent practices of its salesmen” and

“took prompt measures to provide restitution to the shippers.”

Moreover, the ALJ recognized that neither Olds or Gottlob

was criminally prosecuted for altering federal inspections

under 7 U.S.C. § 499n(b).2 Therefore, the ALJ imposed a

civil penalty of $50,000. 

6 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

3

The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated authority to the Judicial

Officer to act as final deciding officer in the USDA’s adjudicatory

proceedings subject to 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 & 557. 7 C.F.R. § 2.35.

The agency appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Judicial

Officer, acting for the Secretary of Agriculture, on May 23,

2001.3 Among other things, the agency argued that the ALJ

erred in failing to find MacClaren’s violations willful and

therefore further erred by imposing a sanction of a civil

monetary penalty rather than license revocation. On

November 8, 2001, without conducting an additional hearing,

Judicial Officer William G. Jenson issued a decision and

order in which he agreed with the majority of the ALJ’s

findings. The decision, however, differed from the opinion of

the ALJ in two significant areas. First, in the findings of fact,

the Judicial Officer concluded that Gregory MacClaren and

Darrell Moccia, MacClaren’s owners, “did not know, but

should have known, during the period of June 1994 through

November 1996, that the United States Department of

Agriculture inspection certificates . . . were altered and that

the false accounts of sales . . . were made.” In addition, the

Judicial Officer disagreed with the sanction of a civil

monetary penalty and instead imposed the sanction of license

revocation. MacClaren filed its petition for review in this

court on January 2, 2002, which was within sixty days of

issuance of the final agency order as required under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2344. 

II.

In 1930, Congress enacted PACA “for the purpose of

regulating the interstate business of shipping and handling

perishable agricultural commodities such as fresh fruit and

vegetables.” Allred’s Produce v. United States Dep’t of

Agric., 178 F.3d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting George

Steinberg and Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1974)).

PACA was “designed to ensure that commerce in agricultural
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

7

commodities is conducted in an atmosphere of financial

responsibility.” Kanowitz Fruit and Produce Co, Inc., v.

United States Dep’t of Agric., No. 97-4224, 1998 WL

863340, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 1998). It provides “a measure

of control over a branch of industry which is almost

exclusively in interstate commerce, is highly competitive, and

presents many opportunities for sharp practice and

irresponsible business conduct.” Allred’s Produce, 178 F.3d

at 745 (quoting Zwick v. Freeman, 373 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.

1967)). To achieve this control, PACA establishes a strict

licensing system and subjects all dealers of perishable

agricultural commodities to severe sanctions for violations of

PACA’s requirements. Id.; 7 U.S.C. §§ 499c(a) & 499h. The

USDA is designated with authority to administer and enforce

PACA.

Under PACA, dealers are subject to a number of statutory

requirements including making full payment promptly for all

purchases of perishable agricultural commodities. 7 U.S.C.

§ 499b(4). In addition, it is unlawful for any dealer “to make,

for a fraudulent purpose, any false or misleading statement in

connection with any transaction involving any perishable

agricultural commodity” and “to fail or refuse [to] truly and

correctly . . . account for such transactions.” Id. Violations

of PACA’s requirements may result in sanctions. The

Secretary may publish the facts and circumstances of

violations and suspend the license of the violator for up to

ninety days, or, if a violation is flagrant or repeated, the

Secretary may revoke the violator’s license. 7 U.S.C.

§ 499h(a). In 1995, Congress amended PACA to provide for

the alternative sanction of a civil monetary penalty not to

exceed $2,000 per violation or $2,000 each day a violation

continues. 7 U.S.C. § 499h(e). 

The USDA set forth the standard governing the decision to

impose a particular sanction in In re S.S. Farms Linn County,

Inc.: 

8 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

[R]eliance will no longer be placed on the “severe”

sanction policy set forth in many prior decisions. Rather,

the sanction in each case will be determined by

examining the nature of the violations in relation to the

remedial purposes of the regulatory statute involved,

along with all relevant circumstances, always giving

appropriate weight to the recommendations of the

administrative officials charged with the responsibility

for achieving the congressional purpose. 

50 Agric. Dec. 476, 497 (1991) (citations omitted), aff’d,

1993 WL 128889 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Secretary

must consider all relevant circumstances, including both

mitigating and aggravating circumstances, when selecting the

appropriate sanction. See Tambone v. United States Dep’t of

Agric., 50 F.3d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

MacClaren first contends that the Secretary, acting through

the Judicial Officer, failed to apply the proper USDA standard

for determining sanctions in deciding to revoke MacClaren’s

license. Whether the Secretary applied the correct standard is

a question of law subject to de novo review. Potato Sales

Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., 92 F.3d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1996)

(“[a]n agency’s conclusions of law are subject to de novo

review”). Our review of the Secretary’s decision indicates

that the Secretary applied the correct legal standard for

determining the appropriate sanction as set forth in S.S.

Farms Linn County, Inc. 

 MacClaren next claims that the Secretary applied the legal

standard incorrectly and therefore imposed an improper

sanction because the Secretary did not examine the nature of

the violations in relation to the remedial purpose of PACA

and did not consider all relevant circumstances. Our review

of an administrative agency decision is narrow, and we will

uphold the decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the

law.” Allred’s Produce, 178 F.3d at 746 (quoting 5 U.S.C.
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

9

§ 706(2)(A)). Specifically, we review whether the Secretary

misapplied the sanction standard for an abuse of discretion,

and we may not overturn the Secretary’s choice of sanction

unless it is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.

See Havana Potatoes of New York Corp. v. United States

Dep’t of Agric., 136 F.3d 89, 91, 93 (2d Cir. 1997)

(considering under an abuse of discretion standard whether

the Secretary’s choice of sanction was based on an erroneous

policy regarding sanctions and whether the Judicial Officer

misapplied the USDA sanction standard, and noting that the

Secretary’s choice of sanction is not to be overturned unless

it is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact );

Norinsberg Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 47 F.3d

1224, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (analyzing appellant’s argument

that the Secretary failed to consider all relevant circumstances

for an abuse of discretion and recognizing that the Secretary’s

choice of sanction cannot be overturned unless it is

unwarranted in law or unjustified in fact).

According to MacClaren, the remedial purpose of PACA is

to “assure that only financially responsible brokers are in

business so that growers are paid for the produce they

supply.” MacClaren admits in its reply brief, however, that

“deterring irresponsible and unscrupulous conduct” is also

part of PACA’s “remedial purpose.” MacClaren points out

that its actions of investigating the wrongdoing and making

restitution indicate financial responsibility. MacClaren

argues that the Secretary’s decision to impose the sanction of

revocation, as opposed to a civil monetary penalty, did not

properly consider the benefits of a civil monetary penalty,

including promoting the remedial purposes of PACA and

encouraging dealers suspected of violations to cooperate with

investigators and make restitution. Moreover, MacClaren

contends that the Secretary ignored relevant circumstances

such as “who will be most affected by the sanction, the

deception of the salesmen’s acts and the lack of any prior

violations by the company.” 

10 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

Before determining the appropriate sanction against

MacClaren, the Secretary fully set forth the sanction policy as

described in S.S. Farms Linn County, Inc. While the

Secretary did not explicitly describe the remedial purposes of

PACA, the Secretary noted that “[t]he purpose of a sanction

in a PACA administrative disciplinary proceeding is to deter

the violator and other potential violators from future

violations of the PACA.” Considering this purpose, the

Secretary concluded that a civil monetary penalty would not

sufficiently deter MacClaren and other potential violators

from future violations of PACA and that license revocation

was necessary to deter such violations. 

The sanction policy states that it is “the nature of the

violations” that is to be examined “in relation to the remedial

purposes” of PACA, not the actions taken after the violations,

which could be, and were, considered as relevant

circumstances. The nature of the violations at issue, altering

inspection certificates and falsifying accounts resulting in

losses to shippers in excess of $136,000, indicates that

MacClaren was not a financially responsible dealer. The

Secretary set forth the specific violations of PACA and noted

that the number of violations and the seriousness of the

violations were factors in determining that revocation of

MacClaren’s license was warranted. Therefore, the Secretary

properly considered the nature of the violations in relation to

the remedial purposes of the PACA. Cf. ABL Produce, Inc.

v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 25 F.3d 641, 646 (8th Cir.

1994) (noting that “consideration of the ‘relevant

circumstances’ should include consideration of the statute’s

purpose” and finding that license revocation was not

appropriate after examining all relevant circumstances).

MacClaren also claims that the Secretary failed to consider

all relevant circumstances before deciding to revoke its

license. MacClaren complains that the sanction of license

revocation falls exclusively on Gregory MacClaren and

Darrell Moccia, while Olds and Gottlob are not subject to any
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

11

penalty. The sanction, however, falls entirely on MacClaren

as a company. Furthermore, because Olds, Gottlob and

Johnston were acting within the scope of their employment

when they knowingly and willfully violated PACA, their

knowing and willful violations are deemed to be knowing and

willful violations by MacClaren. Under PACA, “the act,

omission, or failure of any agent, officer, or other person

acting for or employed by any commission merchant, dealer,

or broker, within the scope of his employment or office, shall

in every case be deemed the act, omission, or failure of such

commission merchant, dealer, or broker as that of such agent,

officer, or other person.” 7 U.S.C. § 499p. According to the

Sixth Circuit, acts are “willful” when “knowingly taken by

one subject to the statutory provisions in disregard of the

action’s legality.” Hodgins v. United States Dep’t of Agric.,

No. 97-3899, 2000 WL 1785733 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2000)

(quotation omitted). “Actions taken in reckless disregard of

statutory provisions may also be considered ‘willful.’” Id.

(quotation and citations omitted). The MacClaren employees

admitted to altering USDA inspection certificates and issuing

false accounts of sale in knowing disregard of their actions’

legality. Accordingly, their willful violations are deemed

willful violations by MacClaren.

 MacClaren asserts that all of the aggravating factors listed

by the Secretary were caused by the salesmen with the

exception of MacClaren’s negligent supervision and its

retention of the salespersons who engaged in the unlawful

conduct, and, according to MacClaren, consideration of these

two factors is inappropriate. MacClaren fails to cite any

authority supporting its argument that these factors are not

relevant or otherwise should not be considered. According to

MacClaren, the Secretary improperly established a new duty

under PACA that supervisors review some undesignated

portion of a salesperson’s files and that failure to do so

constitutes negligent supervision. The Secretary, however,

properly considered the management and supervision of

employees in a highly regulated industry as a relevant factor

12 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

to be weighed in a sanction determination. See generally,

Norinsberg, 47 F.3d at 1227 (considering relevant

circumstances such as the company’s financial difficulties,

accords reached with suppliers, and the potential harm to the

company’s creditors from suspending its license). Similarly,

while retention of employees who commit violations of

PACA is not directly prohibited by PACA, the retention of

such employees may be considered relevant in determining

whether license suspension or revocation is required to deter

future violations. Moreover, as noted above, MacClaren is

deemed to have committed the knowing and willful violations

committed by its employees, and, therefore, the Secretary

properly considered the aggravating factors inherent in the

employees’ violations. Accordingly, theSecretary considered

all relevant circumstances as required in S.S. Farms Linn

County, Inc. in deciding to impose the sanction of license

revocation.

MacClaren next claims that the Secretary erred in imposing

a sanction of license revocation as a result of MacClaren’s

violations of PACA. As we previously noted, the Secretary’s

decision regarding an appropriate sanction may only be

overturned if it is found to be unwarranted in law or without

justification in fact. Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co.,

Inc., 411 U.S. 182, 185-86 (1973); Harry Klein Produce

Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 831 F.2d 403, 406 (2d

Cir. 1987). An appellate court may not reweigh the evidence

or substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary. Havana

Potatoes, 136 F.3d at 91. “The fashioning of an appropriate

and reasonable remedy is for the Secretary, not the court.”

Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. at 188-89. “The

court may decide only whether under the pertinent statute and

relevant facts, the Secretary made ‘an allowable judgment in

(his) choice of the remedy.’” Id. at 189 (quoting Jacob Siegel

Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 327 U.S. 608, 612 (1946)).

MacClaren argues that the sanction imposed is without

justification in fact. Specifically, MacClaren claims that there
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

13

is no evidence to support the Secretary’s determination that

license revocation is necessary to deter future violations.

MacClaren asserts that it has acted to rectify the wrongdoing

and prevent future violations and argues that these remedial

actions should be taken into consideration. In addition,

MacClaren contends that the Secretary’s finding that Gregory

MacClaren and Darrell Moccia would have known about the

altered inspections and false accountings if they had properly

supervised their salesmen is without justification in fact. 

License revocation under PACA is authorized where the

violation is “flagrant or repeated.” 7 U.S.C. § 499h(a);

Norinsberg Corp., 47 F.3d at 1225. In determining whether

violations are “flagrant” under PACA, the court considers

“the number of violations, the amount of money involved,

and the time period during which the violations occurred.”

Allred's Produce, 178 F.3d at 748. “Repeated” violations

under PACA are violations that are not committed

simultaneously. Id. The Secretary found that MacClaren’s

violations of PACA were both flagrant and repeated. The

Secretary’s findings are supported by the record. Three of

MacClaren’s four salesmen admitted to altering fifty-three

inspection certificates over a twenty-nine month period

resulting in underpayments totaling $130,903 to twenty-two

suppliers. These violations meet the definitions of flagrant

and repeated. Therefore, the revocation of MacClaren’s

license was well within the Secretary’s authority and

discretion. See Allred’s Produce, 178 F.3d at 747 (agreeing

with the Secretary that Allred’s violations of PACA were

flagrant and repeated and therefore holding that the Secretary

did not abuse his discretion in revoking a dealer’s license).

Moreover, the Secretary’s legal conclusions that license

revocation was necessary to deter future violations and that

Gregory MacClaren and Darrell Moccia were negligent in

failing to review transaction files prepared by their salesmen

14 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

No. 02-3006

4MacClaren argues that there is little in this case to suggest that

license revocation, rather than a civil monetary penalty, is necessary to

deter it or others from future violations of PACA. MacClaren points out

that a civil monetary penalty would seem especially appropriate in this

case where the imposition of such a penalty, as opposed to revocation,

would encourage other dealers to cooperate with investigators and attempt

to make restitution. We recognize the merit in MacClaren’s argument.

We do note, however, that a while imposing a civil monetary penalty as

opposed to license revocation may encourage cooperation, it would not

be as effective a deterrent because violators might believe that they could

commit violations and, if caught, simply cooperate and pay restitution and

monetary penalties. In the instant case, we are limited to determining

only whether the Secretary made an allowable judgment in the choice of

remedy. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. at 189. Both revocation

and a civil penalty were proper possible remedies in this case. We are not

at liberty to reexamine the aggravating and mitigating evidence to

determine whether we would have arrived at some lesser sanction, such

as a civil penalty. See Havana Potatoes, 136 F.3d at 91.

are sufficiently supported by facts set forth by the Secretary.

4

With regard to deterrence, the Secretary found as follows:

[I]n light of the number of [MacClaren’s] willful

violations, the seriousness of [MacClaren’s] willful

violations, the 29-month period during which the

violations occurred, the number of [MacClaren’s]

employees who altered United States Department of

Agriculture inspection certificates and made false

accounts of sales, the amount of money which

[MacClaren] underpaid its produce suppliers and/or

brokers,[MacClaren’s] retention of the salespersons who

engaged in the unlawful conduct, and [MacClaren’s]

principal’s failure to review transaction files prepared by

[its] salespersons, I conclude a civil penalty would not be

sufficient to deter [MacClaren] and other potential

violators from future violations of the PACA.

In determining whether Gregory MacClaren and Darrell

Moccia were negligent in failing to review their salesmen’s

transaction files, the Secretary considered the requirements of
No. 02-3006 H.C. MacClaren, Inc. v.

United States Dep’t of Agric.

15

PACA, testimony from an experienced manager in the

produce sales industry, and testimony from the USDA

sanction witness. Based on the prohibitions set forth in

PACA and the testimony that appropriate supervision by a

manager includes reviewing a salesperson’s transaction files,

at least on a random sampling basis, the Secretary concluded

that “failure to review a least a portion of the transaction files

prepared by . . . salespersons constitutes gross negligence.”

Because these legal conclusions are sufficiently supported by

evidence in the record, the Secretary’s decision to revoke

MacClaren’s PACA license was justified in fact and was not

an abuse of discretion. 

III.

For all the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision

of the Secretary.