Opinion ID: 168236
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M r. Bahrani’s Arguments

Text: W e begin with M r. Bahrani’s challenges to the district court’s grant of summary judgment. He maintains that: (1) the U SDA regulations require exporters to obtain new certificates and pay the accompanying fees when changes must be made after the certificates are signed; (2) by making changes to the original certificates, Conagra employees avoided an existing “obligation” under § 3729(a)(7); and (3) contrary to the district court’s reasoning, the discretion vested in USDA officials does not establish that the fees for new certificates are contingent obligations outside the scope of § 3729(a)(7). M r. Bahrani also argues that (4) the district court failed to consider his independent claim that Conagra’s employees also violated § 3729(a)(7) by failing to return original certificates to the USD A when changes were necessary. W e consider each argument in turn. 16
M r. B ahrani first challenges the district court’s conclusion that the USDA regulations do not create a § 3729(a)(7) obligation to obtain “in lieu of” or replacement certificates. He maintains that “every time Conagra alters, changes or corrects USDA export certificates it avoids paying set and established monetary fees to the government.” Aplt’s Br. at 47 (emphasis in original). In support of this argument, he relies on Food Inspection Service Directive 9000.1 and the affidavit of a former USD A veterinarian, Dr. M ark M ina. According to M r. Bahrani, Directive 9000.1 provides that “a certifying official can only initial minor erasures or alterations before signing the certificate.” Id. at 42. (internal quotation marks omitted). He continues, “The certifying official has only this one opportunity to approve minor alterations after which any discretion he may have had to approve changes is forever extinguished. There are no provisions allowing the certifying official to approve and initial changes after the certificate is signed.” Id. at 42-43. Like the district court, we are not persuaded by M r. Bahrani’s reading of the Directive. The relevant sections provide: