Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1723960/Agriculture-Law-angel
Timestamp: 2018-06-22 06:05:07
Document Index: 278889254

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 21312159', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2107', '§ 234', '§ 1', '§ 2344']

Agriculture Law: angel | Constitutional Law | Justice
Agriculture Law: angel
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
In re: Samuel K. A ngel; and Thom Bra International, Inc., d/b/a LionsTigers.com and Lions, Tigers, and Te ddy Bears - Oh My!, Respon dents
AWA Docket No. 01-0025
Order Denying Late Appeal as to Samuel K. Angel
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Craig A. Reed, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Departmen t of Agriculture [hereinaf ter Complainant], instituted this disciplinary administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on February 22, 2001. Complainant instituted the proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 21312159) [hereinafter the Animal Welfare Act]; the regulations issued under the Animal Welfare Act (9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-2.133) [hereinafter the Regulations]; and the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes (7 C .F.R. §§ 1.130-.151) [h ereinafter the Rules of P ractice]. Complainant alleges that: (1) on or about December 18, 1998, Samuel K. Angel [hereinafter Respondent] failed to maintain programs of disease control and prevention,
2 euthanasia, and adequate veterinary care under the supervision and assistance of a doctor of veterina ry medicine an d failed to p rovide vete rinary care to an imals in nee d of care, in willful violation of section 2.40 of the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.40); (2) on or about December 19, 1999, Respondent failed to notify the APHIS, REAC sector supervisor of Respondent s change of address within 10 days of the change of address, in violation of section 2.8 o f the Reg ulations (9 C .F.R. § 2.8); (3 ) on Ma rch 4, 2000 , during pu blic exhibition, R esponde nt failed to m aintain a suf ficient distanc e or barrier be tween an imals and the general viewing public, in violation of section 2.131(b)(1) of the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.131(b)(1)); and (4) on March 4, 2000, Respondent failed to provide a sufficient d istance or ba rrier betwee n animals a nd the gen eral viewin g public, resu lting in the injury of Ms. Samatha Iverson, in violation of section 2.100(a) of the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.100(a)) (C ompl. ¶¶ II-V). On April 17, 2001, the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the Complaint, the Rules of Practice, and the Acting Hearing Clerk s service letter dated February 23, 2001.1 Respondent failed to file an answer with the Hearing Clerk within 20 days after the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the Complaint, as required by section 1.136(a) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)). On May 11, 2001, the Hearing Clerk sent Respondent a letter informing Respondent that his answer to the Complaint had not been timely filed.
See Memorandum from TMFisher dated April 17, 2001.
3 On August 21, 2001, in accordance with section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.139), Complainant filed a Motion for Adoption of Proposed Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel [hereinafter Motion for Default Decision as to Samuel K. Angel] and a Proposed Decision and Order Upon Admission of Facts By Reason of Default [hereinafter Proposed Default Decision as to Samuel K. Angel]. On September 24, 2001, the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with Complainant s Motion for Default Decision as to Samuel K. Angel and the Hearing Clerk s service letter dated August 22, 2001.2 The record contains no indication that the Hearing Clerk served Respon dent with C omplaina nt s Propose d Defau lt Decision a s to Samu el K. An gel. Section 1.1 39 of the R ules of Pra ctice (7 C.F .R. § 1.139 ) provides th at a respondent has 20 days after service of a proposed default decision and motion for adoption of the proposed default decision within which to file objections to the proposed default decision and motion for adoption of the proposed default decision. Nonetheless, on Septem ber 26, 200 1, 2 days after th e Hearing Clerk serv ed Resp ondent w ith Complainant s Motion for Default Decision as to Samuel K. Angel and the Hearing Clerk s service letter dated August 22, 2001, Administrative Law Judge Dorothea A. Baker [hereinafter the ALJ] issued a Decision and Order Upon Admission of Facts By Reason of Default [hereinafter Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel]: (1) finding that on or ab out Dece mber 18 , 1998, AP HIS fou nd that Re sponden t failed to ma intain
See Memorandum from TMFisher dated September 24, 2001.
4 programs of disea se control and preven tion, euthanasia, and adequ ate veterinary care under the s upervision and assistan ce of a do ctor of vete rinary medicin e and failed to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care, in willful violation of section 2.40 of the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.40); (2) finding that on or about December 19, 1999, Respondent failed to notify the APHIS, REAC sector supervisor of Respondent s change of add ress wi thin 10 days of R espon dent s chang e of ad dress, in violatio n of se ction 2.8 of the Re gulations (9 C.F.R. § 2 .8); (3) finding that on M arch 4, 200 0, during p ublic exhibition, R esponde nt failed to m aintain a suf ficient distanc e or barrier be tween an imals and the general viewing public, in violation of section 2.131(b)(1) of the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.131(b)(1)); (4) finding that on March 4, 2000, Respondent failed to provide a sufficient distance or barrier between animals and the general viewing public, resulting in the injury of Ms. Samatha Iverson, in violation of section 2.100(a) of the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.100(a)); (5) directing Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Animal W elfare Act and the R egulations and standards issued thereun der ;3 and (6) assessing Respondent a $8,250 civil penalty (Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel at second and third unnum bered pages).
The ALJ s reference to standards issued thereunder is a reference to the standards iss ued und er the An imal We lfare Act (9 C.F.R. §§ 3.1-.142). C omplaina nt did not allege and the ALJ did not find that Respondent violated the standards issued under the Anim al Welfare Act.
5 On February 1, 2002, the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel and the Hearing Clerk s service letter dated October 31, 2001.4 On March 11, 2002, Respondent appealed to the Judicial Officer. On April 16, 2002, Complainant filed Complainant s Response to Appeal by Samuel K. Angel. On April 18, 2002, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to the Judicial Officer for consideration and decision. CONCLUSION BY THE JUDICIAL OFFICER The record establishes that the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel on February 1, 2002.5 Section 1.145(a) of the Rules of Practice provides the time for appealing an administrative law judge s decision, as follows: § 1.145 Appeal to Judicial Officer. (a) Filing of petition. Within 30 days after receiving service of the Judge s decision, a party who disagree s with the decision, or any part thereof, or any ruling by the Judge or any alleged deprivation of rights, may appeal suc h decision to the Judicial O fficer by filing a n appeal p etition with the Hearing Clerk. 7 C.F.R. § 1.145(a).
See Memorandum from TMFisher dated February 1, 2002. See note 4.
6 Therefore, Respondent s appeal petition was required to be filed with the Hearing Clerk no later than March 4, 2002.6 On March 11, 2002, Respondent filed an appeal petition with the Hearing Clerk. The Judicial Officer has continuously and consistently held under the Rules of Practice that the Judicial Officer has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal that is filed after an initial decision a nd order b ecomes f inal. 7 The ALJ s Decision and Order as to
Thirty days after February 1, 2002, was March 3, 2002. However, March 3, 2002, was a Sunday, and section 1.147(h) of the Rules of Practice provides that when the time for filing expires on a Sunday, the time for filing shall be extended to the next business day, as follows: § 1.147 Filing; service; extensions of time; and computation of time. .... (h) Computation of time. Satu rdays , Sun days a nd F eder al ho lidays shall be included in computing the time allowed for the filing of any docume nt or paper: Provided, Tha t, wh en su ch tim e exp ires o n a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, such period shall be extened [sic] to include the next foll owing business d ay. 7 C.F.R. § 1.147(h ). The n ext bus iness da y after Su nday, M arch 3, 2 002, w as Mo nday, M arch 4, 2 002. Therefore, Respondent was required to file his appeal petition no later than March 4, 2002. See In re P aul Euge nio, 60 Agric. Dec. ___ (Dec. 21, 2001) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 1 day after the initial decision and order became fin al); In re Harold P. Kafka, 58 Agric. Dec. 357 (1999) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 15 days afte r the initia l decisio n and o rder be came f inal), aff d per curiam, 259 F.3d 716 (3d C ir. 2001) (Ta ble); In re Kevin Ackerman, 58 Agric. Dec. 340 (1999) (dismissing Kevin Ackerman s appeal petition filed 1 day after the initial decision and order beca me final); In re Severin Peterson, 57 Agric. Dec. 1304 (1998) (dismissing the (contin ued...)
(...continued) applicants appeal petition filed 23 days after the initial decision an d order became final); In re Queen City Farms, Inc., 57 Agric. D ec. 813 (19 98) (dismiss ing the resp ondent s appeal pe tition filed 58 d ays after the initial d ecision and order beca me final); In re Gail Davis, 56 Agric. Dec. 373 (1997) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 41 days after th e initial decision and orde r became final); In re Field Market Produce, Inc., 55 A gric. Dec. 14 18 (1 996) (dis miss ing the re spon dent s app eal p etitio n file d 8 days after the initial de cision and o rder becam e effective ); In re Ow Duk Kwon, 55 Agric. Dec. 78 (1996) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 35 days after the initial decision an d order be came eff ective); In re New York Primate Center, Inc., 53 Agric. Dec. 529 (1994) (dismissing the respondents appeal petition filed 2 days after the initial decision an d order be came fin al); In re K. Lester, 52 Agric. Dec. 332 (1993) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 14 days after the initial decision and order became final and e ffective); In re Amril L. Carrington, 52 Agric. Dec. 331 (1993) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 7 days after the initial decision and order became final and effe ctive); In re Teofilo Benicta, 52 Agric. Dec. 321 (1993) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 6 days after the initial decision and order became final and effe ctive); In re Newark Produce Distributors, Inc., 51 Agric. Dec. 955 (1992) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed after the initial decision and order became final and e ffective); In re Laura May Kurjan, 51 Agric. Dec. 438 (1992) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed after the initial decision and order became final); In re Kermit Breed, 50 Agric. Dec. 675 (1991) (dismissing the responde nt s late-filed app eal petition); In re Biha ri Lall, 49 Agric. Dec. 896 (1990) (stating the respondent s appeal petition, filed after the initial decision became final, must be dismisse d becaus e it was no t timely filed); In re Dale Haley, 48 Agric. Dec. 1072 (1989) (stating the respondents appeal petition, filed after the initial decision became final and e ffective, m ust be dism issed becau se it was no t timely filed); In re Mary Fran Hamilton, 45 Agric. Dec. 2395 (1986) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed with the Hearing Clerk on the day the initial decision and order had become final and effective); In re Bushelle Cattle Co., 45 Agric. Dec. 1131 (1986) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed 2 days after the initial decision and order became final and effe ctive); In re William T. Powe ll, 44 Agric. Dec. 1220 (1985) (stating it has consistently been held that, under the Rules of Practice, the Judicial Officer has no jurisdiction to h ear an app eal after the in itial decision an d order be comes fin al); In re Toscony Provision Co., Inc., 43 Agric. Dec. 1106 (1984) (stating the Judicial Officer has no jurisdiction to hear an app eal that is filed after the initial decision becomes final), aff d, No. 81-1 729 (D.N .J. Mar. 11, 1 985) (cou rt reviewed merits notw ithstanding la te (contin ued...)
8 Samuel K. Angel became final on March 8, 2002,8 3 days prior to the date Respondent filed an appeal petition with the Hearing Clerk. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to hear Respon dent s appeal. The United States Department of Agriculture s construction of the Rules of Practice is, in this respect, consistent with the construction of the Federal Rules of Appellate Proced ure. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Proced ure provides, as follows:
(...continued) admin istrative a ppeal), aff d, 782 F.2d 1031 (3d Cir. 1986) (unpublish ed); In re Dock Case Brokerage Co., 42 Agric. Dec. 1950 (1983) (dismissing the respondents appeal petition filed 5 days after the in itial decision an d order be came fin al); In re Veg-Pro Distributors, 42 Agric. Dec. 1173 (1983) (denying the respondent s appeal petition filed 1 day after the d efault decisio n and ord er becam e final); In re Samuel Simon Petro, 42 Agric. Dec. 921 (1983) (stating the Judicial Officer has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal that is f iled after the in itial decision an d order be comes fin al and eff ective); In re Yankee Brokerage, Inc., 42 Agric. Dec. 427 (1983) (dismissing the respondent s appeal petition filed o n the day the in itial decision be came eff ective); In re Charles Brink, 41 Agric. Dec. 2146 (1982) (stating the Judicial Officer has no jurisdiction to consider the respondent s appeal dated before the initial decision and order became final, but not filed until 4 days after the initial decision and order be came final and ef fective), reconsideration denied, 41 Agric. D ec. 2147 (1 982); In re Mel s Produce, Inc., 40 Agric. Dec. 792 (1981) (stating since the respondent s petition for reconsideration was not filed within 35 days after service of the default decision, the default decision became final and neither the administrative law judge nor the Judicial Officer has jurisdiction to consider the respon dent s petition); In re Animal Research Center of Massachusetts, Inc., 38 Agric. Dec. 379 (1978) (stating failure to file an appeal petition before the effective date of the initial decision is ju risdictional); In re Willie Cook, 39 Agric. Dec. 116 (1978) (stating it is the co nsistent policy of the United States De partment o f Agricu lture not to consider appeals filed m ore than 35 days after service o f the initial decision). See section 1.142(c)(4) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.142(c)(4)) and the Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel at third unnumbered page.
9 Rule 4. Appeal as of Right (a) When Taken
Appeal in a Civil Case. (1) Time fo r Filing a N otice of A ppeal. (A) In a civil case . . . the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 m ust b e file d with the district c lerk with in 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.
As stated in Eaton v. Jamrog, 984 F.2d 760, 76 2 (6th Cir. 1993): We have rep eatedly held that compliance w ith Rule 4(a)(1) is a mand atory and jurisdictional prerequisite which this court may neither waive nor extend . See, e.g., Bak er v. Raulie , 879 F.2d 1396, 1398 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Myers v. Ace Hardware, Inc., 777 F .2d 109 9, 1102 (6th Ci r. 1985 ). So strictly has this rule been applied, that even a notice of appeal filed five minute s late has been d eemed untime ly. Baker, 879 F.2d at 1398.[9]
Accord Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 203 (1988) (stating since the court of appeals properly held petitioner s notice of appeal from the decision on the merits to be untimely filed, and since the time of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the court of appeals was without jurisdiction to review the decision on the merits); Browd er v. Directo r, Dep t of Corr. of Illino is, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (stating under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2107, a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken; this 30-d ay time lim it is man datory an d jurisdi ctional) , rehearing denied, 434 U.S. 1089 (1978); Martinez v. Hoke, 38 F.3d 655, 656 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (stating under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the time for filing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional an d the court o f appeals h as no auth ority to extend tim e for filing); Price v. Seydel, 961 F.2d 1470, 14 73 (9th C ir. 1992) (stating the filing of n otice of ap peal within the 30-day period specified in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) is mandatory and jurisdictional, and unless app ellant s notice is time ly, the appeal m ust be dism issed); In re Eichelberger, 943 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 199 1) (stating R ule 4(a) of th e Federal R ules of A ppellate Procedure requires that a n otice of appeal be filed w ith the clerk of the district court within 30 days after entry of the judgment; Rule 4(a) s provisions are mandatory and jurisdictional); Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating the time limit in Fe d. R. App . P. 4(a)(1) is m andatory and jurisdictional; fa ilure to com ply with Rule 4(a) requires dismissal of the appeal and the fact that appellant is incarcerated and pro ceedin g pro se does n ot chan ge the c lear lang uage o f the R ule), cert. denied, (contin ued...)
10 The Rules of Practice do not provide for an extension of time (for good cause or excusable neglect) for filing a notice of appeal after an initial decision and order has become final. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the district court, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time to file a notice of appeal upon a motion filed no later than 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise provided in the rules fo r the filing of a notice of appeal. 10 The abse nce of su ch a rule in the Rules of Practice emphasizes that no such jurisdiction has been granted to the Judicial Officer to extend the time for filing an appeal after an initial decision and order has become final. Therefore, under the Rules of Practice, I cannot extend the time for Respon dent s filing an ap peal petition a fter the AL J s Decision and Ord er as to Samuel K . Angel be came fin al. Moreover, the jurisdictional bar under the Rules of Practice, which precludes the Judicial Officer from hearing an appeal that is filed after an initial decision and order becomes final, is consistent w ith the judicial construction of the A dministrative Orders Review Act ( Hobbs Act ). As stated in Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. ICC, 720 F.2d 958, 960 (7th Cir. 1983) (fo otnote omitted):
(...continued) 493 U.S . 1060 (19 90); Jerningham v. Humphreys, 868 F.2d 846 (6th C ir. 1989) (Order) (stating the fa ilure of an a ppellant to tim ely file a notice of appeal de prives an ap pellate court of juris diction; com pliance w ith Rule 4(a ) of the Fed eral Rules o f Appe llate Procedure is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite which this court can neither waive nor extend ).
See Fed. R. App. P . 4(a)(5).
11 The Administrative Orders Review Act ( Hobbs Act ) requires a petition to review a final order of an administrative agency to be brought within sixty days o f the entry of th e order. 28 U .S.C. § 234 4 (1976). T his sixty-day time limit is jurisdictional in nature and may not be enlarged by the cou rts. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 666 F.2d 595, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The purpose of the time limit is to impart finality into the administrative process, thereby conserving administrative resources and protecting the reliance interests of those who might c onfor m their c onduc t to the ad ministra tive regu lations. Id. at 602.[11] Accordingly, Respondent s appeal petition must be denied, since it is too late for the m atter to be further c onsi dere d. M oreo ver, t he m atter shou ld no t be c onsi dere d by a reviewing court since, under the Rules of Practice, no decision shall be final for purposes of judicial rev iew exce pt a final dec ision of the J udicial Of ficer upon appeal (7 C.F.R. § 1.142(c)(4 )). For the foregoing reasons, the following Order should be issued.
Accord Jem Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 324-26 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (stating the court s baseline standard long has been that statutory limitations on petitions for review are jurisdictional in nature and appellant s petition filed after the 60-day limitation in the Hobbs Act will no t be entertaine d); Friends of Sierra R.R. v. ICC, 881 F.2d 663, 666 (9th C ir. 1989) (stating the time limit in 28 U.S.C . § 2344 is jurisdictional), cert. denied sub nom. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist. v. ICC, 493 U.S. 1093 (1 990).
12 ORDER Respondent s appeal petition filed March 11, 2002, is denied. The Decision and Order as to Samuel K. Angel, filed by Administrative Law Judge Dorothea A. Baker on Septemb er 26, 2001 , is the final dec ision and o rder as to R esponde nt Samu el K. An gel in this proceeding. Done at Washington, DC April 24, 2002
______________________________ William G. Jenson Judicial Officer
Documents Similar To Agriculture Law: angel
Notice: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Emerald ash borer; biological control
Rule: Interstate transportation of animals and animal products (quarantine): Tuberculosis in cattle and bison&#8212; State and area classifications
Lala Marie Sanico
LULAC - Joey Cardenas Comments on Victory in Fedral El Paso Court
Rule: Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Imported fire ants
Charities and Animal Experiments
Notice: Meetings: Voluntary Foreign Aid Advisory Committee
citizen action paper
api-285729927
bcrenegamers09222017agenda
Notice: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Nonregulated status determinations&#8212; Safflower; genetically engineered to express carp growth hormones; field release
Tolerance of mango cv. ʻAtaulfoʼ to irradiation with Co-60 vs. hydrothermal phytosanitary treatment
Notice: Decision to Issue Permits for the Importation of Sweet Cherries From Australia Into the Continental United States and Hawaii
Agustin v Edu 88 SCRA 195 (1979)
Evelyn Bergantinos DM
Carlos Alberto Ballbe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 886 F.2d 306, 11th Cir. (1989)
Consti 2
09-80173 #41
sg;wglweg
Customs and Excises supreme court cases
Julio Cesar Melgar-Quijano, A094 857 498 (BIA Dec. 12, 2013)
Bank of Alabama v. Dalton, 50 U.S. 522 (1850)
Macon County Sheriff Cannon vacates his Office to protect kidnappers, attorneys, juvenile judge
Berchiolly v. Terrell, 10th Cir. (2006)
Eustaquio - Reaction to Passion of Justice
Neil Eustaquio
8. Australia V France.pdf
Wesley E. Dixon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Wesley E. Dixon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, James Lee Beckman, Formerly D/B/A Jim Beckman Insurance Company Jasper N. Watson, Jr. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, and Horace Mann Insurance Company, Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, and Educators Marketing Services Corporation, 800 F.2d 422, 4th Cir. (1986)
Summary Dismissal v. Torcita (digest)
TJ Paula Tapales Jornacion