Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/801/1410/66098/
Timestamp: 2019-07-19 19:01:32
Document Index: 730900267

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 499', '§ 499', 'art:\n7', '§ 499', '§ 499', '§ 554']

Nuncio J. Martino, Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture and United States Ofamerica, Respondents.hilmer J. Schmidt, Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture and United States Ofamerica, Respondents, 801 F.2d 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1986) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1986 › Nuncio J. Martino, Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture and United States Ofameric...
Nuncio J. Martino, Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture and United States Ofamerica, Respondents.hilmer J. Schmidt, Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture and United States Ofamerica, Respondents, 801 F.2d 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 801 F.2d 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
Argued March 21, 1986. Decided Sept. 30, 1986
The Act defines "responsibly connected" as "affiliated or connected with a commission merchant, dealer, or broker as (A) partner in a partnership, or (B) officer, director, or a holder of more than 10 per centum of the outstanding stock of a corporation or association."7 As this court has noted, " ' [t]he Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act is admittedly and intentionally a "tough" law.' "8 By the terms of the Act, once a person is found to be a bona fide partner, officer, director, or ten-percent or larger shareholder of a sanctioned company, he is completely foreclosed from employment in the industry for at least one year,9 whether or not he participated personally in the violation.10
Second, petitioners make the argument that the Administrator's failure to recite that he reviewed the entire record renders the debarment orders void.25 Even leaving aside the question whether the formal adjudication procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act26 apply to proceedings under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act--which does not expressly require an on-the-record hearing, or indeed any hearing, on the question of responsible connection27 --we must accord the Administrator a presumption of administrative regularity.28 And any lack of a formal motion defining the record was harmless error.29
Similarly, Minotto v. Department of Agriculture38 concerned a clerical employee who, like Quinn, was made a nominal director at her corporate employer's request and for its convenience.39 While Minotto had been afforded the hearing denied in Quinn, we rejected an administrative holding that she was responsibly connected, noting that " [t]he finding that an individual was 'responsibly connected' must be based upon evidence of an actual, significant nexus with the violating company."40 Like Quinn, Minotto emphasized that its conclusion depended upon the determination that Minotto's status as a director was only nominal.41
[s]urely [ ] the relationships of director, officer or substantial shareholder form a sufficient nexus for the arbitrary conclusion of responsible connection. Moreover, the formation of such relationships with the sanctioned company is a voluntary act. The fact that an individual has not exercised "real" authority in the sanctioned company is not controlling: certainly the individual could have resigned as an officer and director and disposed of his stock. It was his free choice not to do so. Having made that choice, the appellant [s] assumed the burdens imposed by the Act.44
Ch. 436, Sec. 1, 46 Stat. 531 (1930) (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq. (1982)) [hereinafter cited as codified]
See Act of Apr. 13, 1934, ch. 120, 48 Stat. 584; Act of Aug. 30, 1937, ch. 719, 50 Stat. 725; Act of June 29, 1940, ch. 456, 54 Stat. 696; Pub. L. No. 87-725, 76 Stat. 673 (1962); Pub. L. No. 91-107, 83 Stat. 182 (1969); Pub. L. No. 95-562, 92 Stat. 2381 (1978)
Since the history of the Act is canvassed in Quinn v. Butz, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 365-366, 373-375, 510 F.2d 743, 745-746, 753-755 (1975), it is not repeated here. See also Birkenfield v. United States, 369 F.2d 491, 494 (3d Cir. 1966); Pupillo v. United States, 755 F.2d 638, 643-644 (8th Cir. 1985)
7 U.S.C. § 499h(b) (1982), providing in relevant part:
7 U.S.C. § 499a(9) (1982).
The Secretary may approve employment after one year upon the posting of a bond, or after two years without bond. 7 U.S.C. § 499h(b) (1982)
S.Rep. No. 750, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 4-5 (1961); H.R.Rep. No. 1546, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1962), reprinted in 1962 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2749, 2753. See Quinn v. Butz, supra note 5, 166 U.S.App.D.C. at 376 n. 84, 510 F.2d at 756 n. 84; George Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988, 994, (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830, 95 S. Ct. 53, 42 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1974); Zwick v. Freeman, 373 F.2d 110, 118 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 835, 88 S. Ct. 43, 19 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1967); Birkenfield v. United States, supra note 5, 369 F.2d at 493; Pupillo v. United States, supra note 5, 755 F.2d at 643-644
Illinois v. ICC, 698 F.2d 868, 872 (7th Cir. 1983); Trailways v. United States, 235 F. Supp. 509, 512 (D.D.C. 1964) (three-judge court)
5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556 (1982)
Minotto v. Department of Agriculture, supra note 15, 229 U.S.App.D.C. at 129 n. 3, 711 F.2d at 407 n. 3. See Izaak Walton League v. Marsh, 210 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 248-249 n. 37, 655 F.2d 346, 361-362 n. 37, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S. Ct. 657, 70 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1981); Association of Nat'l Advertisers v. FTC, 201 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 174-175 & n. 17, 627 F.2d 1151, 1160-1161 & n. 17 (1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921, 100 S. Ct. 3011, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1980)