Opinion ID: 468119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 15 Lovgren's first argument is that, because the ALJ's findings are not supported by substantial evidence, the fines cannot stand. We agree with Lovgren as to the appropriate standard of review of the ALJ's findings, see 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1858(b); Laird v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 691 F.2d 147, 150 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied 461 U.S. 927, 103 S.Ct. 2086, 77 L.Ed.2d 297 (1983), but find unassailable the district court's conclusion that the ALJ's decision was justified by substantial evidence. 16 The ALJ concluded that Lovgren had purposefully and effectively foreclosed the agents from carrying out their investigatory duty by refusing them access to the platform. This action violates 50 C.F.R. Sec. 651.7(1), which makes it unlawful to refuse to permit an authorized officer to enter an area of custody for purposes of conducting an inspection. 1 17 Lovgren concedes that he refused the special agents access to the platform onto which the fish from the LYDIA J were being unloaded. Furthermore, he does not dispute that the platform was an area of custody under the regulations. His argument seems to be that standing on the top of a ladder is not sufficient to violate the Act. However, he is being punished not for the station he maintained, but for the passage he denied. 18 Lovgren also challenges the ALJ's finding of liability on the second count, based on 50 C.F.R. Sec. 651.7(m), because no actual physical confrontation occurred. 2 However, Lovgren admits that he was upset and that he tends to be a volatile person. Moreover, he agreed that his statements to the agents were aggressive and that it was possible that his intent was to prevent Agent Livingston physically from coming up the ladder. 19 Both agents testified that Lovgren's act and manner of standing at the top of the platform with Livingston on the ladder below him were threatening and Livingston testified that he believed himself to be in a physically threatening position. 20 This testimony supports the ALJ's conclusion that Lovgren's resistance to the inspection contained elements of force and implied threats of violence. The regulation does not require fisticuffs. Forceful resistance, intimidation or interference suffices. 21 We therefore agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Lovgren's lack of cooperation contained elements of forceful resistance. This is sufficient to support the finding of a violation of 50 C.F.R. Sec. 651.7(m).