Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1725135/Agriculture-Law-mcquary
Timestamp: 2014-04-24 13:43:20
Document Index: 113480802

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2131', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§1']

P. 1Agriculture Law: mcquaryAgriculture Law: mcquaryRatings: (0)|Views: 118|Likes: 0Published by aglawMore info:Published by: aglaw on Jan 27, 2008Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/1725135/Agriculture-Law-mcquary07/15/2013pdftextoriginal UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREBEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTUREIn re:)AWA Docket No. 03-0013)Wanda McQuary, Randall )Jones, and Gary Jackson,))
Decision and Order as to
Wanda McQuary and Randall JonesPROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], instituted this disciplinaryadministrative proceeding by filing a “Complaint” on February 13, 2003. Complainantinstituted the proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159) [hereinafter the Animal Welfare Act]; the regulations and standards issued under theAnimal Welfare Act (9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142) [hereinafter the Regulations and Standards];and the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by theSecretary Under Various Statutes (7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-.151) [hereinafter the Rules of Practice].Complainant alleges Wanda McQuary, Randall Jones, and Gary Jackson [hereinafterRespondents] committed willful violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations
United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipts for Article Number 70001670 0011 8982 7401 and Article Number 7000 1670 0011 8982 7425.
United States Postal Service Track/Confirm - Intranet Item Inquiry for ItemNumber: 7000 1670 0011 8982 7418.and Standards on September 13, 2001, October 2, 2001, March 26, 2002, and September26, 2002 (Compl. ¶¶ II-V).The Hearing Clerk served Respondent Wanda McQuary and Respondent RandallJones with the Complaint, the Rules of Practice, and a service letter on February 15, 2003.
The Hearing Clerk served Respondent Gary Jackson with the Complaint, the Rules of Practice, and a service letter on February 22, 2003.
Respondents failed to answer theComplaint within 20 days after service as required by section 1.136(a) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)). The Hearing Clerk sent Respondents a letter dated April 30,2003, informing them that an answer to the Complaint had not been received within thetime required in the Rules of Practice.On May 6, 2003, 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 andOrder Upon Admission of Facts by Reason of Default” [hereinafter Motion for DefaultDecision] and a “Proposed Decision and Order” [hereinafter Proposed Default Decision].The Hearing Clerk served Respondent Wanda McQuary and Respondent Gary Jackson withComplainant’s Motion for Default Decision, Complainant’s Proposed Default Decision,
United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipts for Article Number 70010360 0000 0304 5357 and Article Number 7001 0360 0000 0304 5364.
United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipt for Article Number 70010360 0000 0304 5340.and a service letter on May 15, 2003.
The Hearing Clerk served Respondent Randall Joneswith Complainant’s Motion for Default Decision, Complainant’s Proposed DefaultDecision, and a service letter on May 17, 2003.
Respondents failed to file objections toComplainant’s Motion for Default Decision and Complainant’s Proposed Default Decisionwithin 20 days after service as required by section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R.§ 1.139).On July 21, 2003, pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. §1.139), Administrative Law Judge Marc R. Hillson [hereinafter the ALJ] issued a “Decisionand Order Upon Admission of Facts by Reason of Default” [hereinafter Initial Decision andOrder]: (1) concluding that Respondents willfully violated the Animal Welfare Act and theRegulations and Standards as alleged in the Complaint; (2) directing Respondents to ceaseand desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards;(3) assessing Respondents an $8,800 civil penalty; (4) revoking Respondents’ AnimalWelfare Act license; and (5) disqualifying Respondents from becoming licensed under theAnimal Welfare Act and the Regulations.