/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query agriculture returned 1217 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
928 OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held that one aspect of the pricing system the
923 OPINION/ORDER
Because their employees are
869 OPINION/ORDER
OPINION PER CURIAM: Joseph and Judy Pauly are farmers who entered into a tenyear agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) whereby the USDA agreed to restructure the Paulys' debt in exchange for a portion of the appreciation in the value of their farm during the term of the agreement. The Paulys argue that the Government or its agents are liable for tort damages arising from fraud in the inducement. The district court affirmed the USDA's determination that appreciation was due under the agreement and granted in part the USDA's motion for summary judgment. The district court was correct in enforcing the agreement according to its terms and in conformity with the statute governing the USDA's loan program. Held a portfolio that was severely threatened by the declining net worth of U.S. farmers. The vast majority of FmHA's outstanding farm debt was delinquent. Which allowed farmers who were delinquent in payments to restructure their debts. Joseph and Judy Pauly are farmers who were delinquent in their loans from the USDA.
831 02-1483 -- RODRIGUEZ V. WHITING FARMS INC. -- 02/10/2004

Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption. Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
810 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge We are asked to review the District Court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the Secretary of Agriculture for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Penn Ag Industries in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will affirm. It proclaimed that
777 OPINION/ORDER
Was involved in a form of secondary agriculture. BACKGROUND Sugar Farms Co op is organized as an agricultural cooperative association under Florida law. The land making up the farm is owned by a number of different entities that pay the cooperative to carry on the farming operations. Florida Crystals Corporation and Florida Crystals Food Corporation were alleged to be joint employers of Sariol. Were part of the operations at Sugar Farms Co op. Covered employees must be paid at least one and one half times the regular rate at which they are employed for hours worked in excess of forty hours. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2). Which are performed either by a farmer on a farm. Later courts have characterized this distinction as one between
777 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for respondents. Circuit Judge: Michael No rinsberg (Michael or petitioner) petitions for review of the determination by the United States Department of Agricul ture (Agriculture or Agency) that he was
739 OPINION/ORDER
These rules are called
723 OPINION/ORDER
McBride argued the cause for appellant.
723 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Eve J. With him on the brief was Roscoe C. We hold that dismissal was proper because Hershey failed to exhaust its administrative reme dies. Applying to different geographic regions and classifying milk according to the
708 BAMA TOMATO CO. V. U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bama Tomato Co. v. 7 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-6778.opa.html">BAMA TOMATO CO. V. U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bama Tomato Co. v. 7 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-9570.html">CULBERTSON V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> Culbertson is a rancher and farmer who occasionally works as a cattle broker. Jr. of New Mexico was interested in selling approximately 600 head of cattle. Culbertson was unaware of the infection. The owners were informed of this fact on March 4. Did not examine the health certificates and therefore was unaware that they were incomplete due to their failure to identify each animal by eartag. Weber to the Major ranch where the remaining cattle were loaded for shipment to Nebraska. The shipment to Nebraska was canceled when it was determined that Mr. Health certificates were issued and. Nor was he compensated for his chauffeuring activities. Was loaded for shipment to Nebraska. At least 20 of the animals in the Nebraska shipment were not tested for brucellosis within the thirty days prior to their interstate shipment. The JO reversed the ALJ's Decision and Order by adding bracketed portions and concluding that 4 Section 78.9(b)(3)(ii) in pertinent part prohibits the movement of test eligible cattle to areas other than recognized slaughtering establishments or quarantined feedlots unless </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-9543.htm">02-9543 -- MCCLOY V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 12/02/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963249P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HOA (some of whose employees were employed by the Department before joining HOA) was performing grain weighing. Inspection services in grain warehouses in the Kansas City area that were licensed under the United States Warehouse Act. Such weights are a grain industry The Honorable Richard H. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 32 1 standard (not a matter of federal or state law) and are obtained by a licensed weigher. That is. Who was then (and was from November 1981 through June 1994) the Division Director of Grain Inspection and Warehousing for the Department. The Department relied for its authority on the Missouri Grain Warehouse Law (the MGWL): The department shall have the exclusive right to officially weigh or supervise the actual weighing of grain in licensed terminal warehouses subject to the provisions of this chapter. Unless the owner or his agent indicates that no official weights are desired and may officially weigh or supervise the actual weighing of grain in public or private warehouses or industries upon application of the owners or operators thereof and their agreement to guarantee the operating costs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9DC5E8659754C9E88256E5A00707C3A/$file/9916981.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for his predecessor. District Judge: Appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8600030F90A4637488256AA3005A481F/$file/9916981.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for his predecessor. District Judge: Appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-7044.opa.html">LEWIS V. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Big </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992137.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: These appeals were consolidated for oral argument pursuant to U.S. They were given lower annual evaluations and correspondingly lower annual raises from 1994 to 1998. Were denied other professional opportunities incident to their employment at VSU.1 The cases were consolidated by the district court for discovery and trial. Their claims are not a part of this appeal. 2 Farley was named as a defendant in Saleh's case only. Epps was named as a defendant in Mbagwu's case only. Saleh's discrimination and retaliation claims against Demers were presented to the jury and a verdict was returned in Demers' favor. 1 SALEH v. The district court determined that the underlying factual allegations were subject to Virginia's two year statute of limitations. The district court found that evidence respecting the time barred allegations was relevant to prove discriminatory intent as to the claims surviving summary judgment. The matter was tried before a jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-7044.opa.html">LEWIS V. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Big </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-1170.htm">03-1170 -- PACHECO V. WHITING FARMS INC. -- 04/30/2004<BR></A><BR> Holding Defendants were not required to pay Plaintiff overtime wages under FLSA's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-3173.htm">00-3173 -- GOETZ V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 04/20/2001<BR></A><BR> Or any other person who is responsible for collecting and remitting an assessment pursuant to the Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310387.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Plaintiffs were not engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU2MzQtYWcgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-5634-ag%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary further found that the pattern of corruption practiced by the USDA inspectors was not sufficiently coercive to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-4073.htm">98-4073 -- NGATUVAI V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 12/16/1998<BR></A><BR> Ngatuvai's complaint is somewhat difficult to follow. He asserts that its Koolaupoko court acted improperly in adjudicating the eviction proceedings against him because the Zion Securities Corporation was affiliated with the Mormon church. It maintained that courts have concluded that farm loan borrowers do not have a constitutional right to farm loan servicing and that federal statutes do not create a private right of action to challenge the servicing of farm loans. <u>See</u> Rec. doc. 15. At 4 (arguing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0185n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is also a licensed trainer and judge. The Duck is a stallion and a previous world grand champion. Bennett's goal was to prepare The Duck to win another championship at the 64th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Show in Shelbyville. He did not like strangers and was easily excited when around other horses. Who was to ride The Duck in the competition. Waited until the horse inspection area was empty of other horses before bringing The Duck to be inspected. The Duck was approved for exhibition. Bennett was stopped by Dr. Of which Bennett was also previously aware. Guedron palpating The Duck's left front pastern in a manner Bennett believed to be intended to provoke a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061124p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this petition for review is whether post default agreements. We will affirm the decision of the Secretary and deny the petition for review. I. The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Baiardi was licensed under the PACA from June 8. Baiardi notified its sellers (in most instances the producers of the agricultural products) that it was going out of business. The producers were willing to resolve Baiardi's indebtedness quickly because. Several companies feared they would receive none of the money they were owed if they chose not to settle. At least two other accounts were settled through court dispositions. If the violation is flagrant or repeated. The only sanction open to the Secretary was the publication of the facts and circumstances of the case. Judicial review of the decision of an administrative agency is narrowly confined. Every dealer of perishable agricultural commodities is required to be licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU2MzQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5634-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary further found that the pattern of corruption practiced by the USDA inspectors was not sufficiently coercive to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0501n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We rejected the farmers' contention that payment was not required because local representatives of the Department of Agriculture told them that they would not have to make such payments if they continued to operate their farms for the ten year term of the agreements. The farmers have now petitioned for panel rehearing. Asserting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AF1EE7BDC1DA8AC588256E5A00707BAC/$file/9970747.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The orders were based on a 1998 United States Forest Service determination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFD64FE849F9EBF288256A140062A3A7/$file/9917264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Appellants are citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia who reside in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1590.html">BRAZOS V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5074.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Was subject to a $58. Because the cap had been reached and the available funds exhausted before the suit was commenced. Appellants' claim was barred. We agree that the appropriation was subject to a statutory cap. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. The per acre limitation was imposed as the productivity (and hence value) of fruit trees is inversely proportional to the number of trees planted per acre the lower the density. Limited the definition of acreage to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/95D2E7F6B1AF487588256E5A00707A9F/$file/9917264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Appellants are citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia who reside in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1505a.html">KIRBY PRODUCE COMPANY, INC V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> Gentile argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-5309a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the brief was Katherine A. That they were of great value as a source of food and in destroying insects injurious to vegetation. Were in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EC03E5B3E168EA7988256A71007F61C3/$file/9970747.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The orders were based on a 1998 United States Forest Service determination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-1429.htm">02-1429 -- PARK LAKE RESOURCES LIMITED LIABILITY CO. V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 08/13/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/97-3072a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard A. With him on the briefs were Donald C. Green were on the brief for amicus curiae American League of Lobbyists. Circuit Judge: Sun Diamond is a large agricul tural cooperative owned by individual member cooperatives including Diamond Walnut Growers. Who was responsible for investigating allegations of unlawful activity by former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. Linking Sun Diamond and Espy was the figure of Richard Douglas. Douglas was responsible for (among other things) representing the interests of the corporation and its member cooperatives in Washington. The Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-3072b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard A. With him on the briefs were Donald C. Green were on the brief for amicus curiae American League of Lobbyists. Circuit Judge: Sun Diamond is a large agricul tural cooperative owned by individual member cooperatives including Diamond Walnut Growers. Who was responsible for investigating allegations of unlawful activity by former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. Linking Sun Diamond and Espy was the figure of Richard Douglas. Douglas was responsible for (among other things) representing the interests of the corporation and its member cooperatives in Washington. The Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3123c.html">USA V. SCHAFFER ARCHIBALD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs </p> <p>were <i>Donald C. With him on the briefs were <i>Joe R. </p> <p>Caldwell. We find sufficient evidence in the </p> <p>record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded </p> <p>that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be </p> <p>cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient </p> <p>evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality </p> <p>were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al </p> <p>phonso Michael Espy (". He was subsequently nominated to </p> <p>that position on December 24. </p> <p>the <i>E coli</i> outbreak was a matter of major importance within </p> <p>the Department.</p> <p>In response to the public concern. These policies were direct </p> <p>ed at preventing contamination and instructing the public as </p> <p>to the proper handling procedures for meat and poultry. </p> <p>Along with other affected companies. At which they </p> <p>were entertained by B.B. USDA officials were at vari </p> <p>ous stages in the process of developing and implementing </p> <p>initiatives that would seriously impact the business of Tyson </p> <p>Foods. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were consolidated for oral argument. Stem from a program under which the United States Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-1020.htm">98-1020 -- PARK LAKE RESOURCES LIMITED LIABILITY CO. V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 11/19/1999<BR></A><BR> 251.23 (1998).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3123a.html">USA V. SCHAFFER ARCHIBALD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs <p> were <i>Donald C. With him on the briefs were <i>Joe R. <p> Caldwell. We find sufficient evidence in the <p> record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded <p> that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be <p> <p> <p> cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient <p> evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality <p> were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al <p> phonso Michael Espy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1852a.html">CRAWFORD SHERYL V. AGRI<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-3123a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Donald C. With him on the briefs were Joe R. We find sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al phonso Michael Espy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-3123c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Donald C. With him on the briefs were Joe R. We find sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al phonso Michael Espy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-2281.htm">95-2281 -- DUKE V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE -- 12/17/1997<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs asserted that six year old Joel Duke suffered serious brain injury when a boulder rolled down a hillside and smashed into his tent while he was camping with his family in the Gila National Forest. Plaintiffs' claim for damages against the United States was founded on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The central issue in this appeal is whether the discretionary function exception furnishes immunity for the United States. Plaintiffs' assertion that the state waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by engaging in activities and entering contracts subject to federal regulation is incorrect. <u>See</u>. 1125 (1996) (Congress had no power to unilaterally abrogate state's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity when the act in question was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-2091.htm">01-2091 -- DAIRY PRODUCERS OF NEW MEXICO V. VENEMAN -- 06/13/2002<BR></A><BR> District Judge.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200108/99-1505a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Kevin P. With him on the brief were James Michael Kelly. Concluding that there was no dispute of material fact warranting a hearing. Because the grounds upon which the Department made that conclusion were arbitrary and capri cious. See 7 U.S.C. s 499c.1 PACA licensees are forbidden to engage in specified unfair practices. Prompt payment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-8686.opa.html">INSPECTOR GEN. OF U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE V. GLENN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Inspector Gen. of U.S. Appellants argued that the subpoenas exceeded the Inspector General's statutory authority and were unduly burdensome. The district court agreed to stay enforcement pending appeal because several issues would be mooted on appeal if appellants were required to produce the subpoenaed information immediately. The Inspector General sought to determine whether CFSA program participants were complying with regulatory payment limitations. The Inspector General determined that $1.3 million in questionable disaster payments were awarded to Mitchell County program participants. DISCUSSION<p> <p> Due to a concern that fraud and abuse in federal programs was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-8686.opa.html">INSPECTOR GEN. OF U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE V. GLENN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Inspector Gen. of U.S. Appellants argued that the subpoenas exceeded the Inspector General's statutory authority and were unduly burdensome. The district court agreed to stay enforcement pending appeal because several issues would be mooted on appeal if appellants were required to produce the subpoenaed information immediately. The Inspector General sought to determine whether CFSA program participants were complying with regulatory payment limitations. The Inspector General determined that $1.3 million in questionable disaster payments were awarded to Mitchell County program participants. DISCUSSION<p> <p> Due to a concern that fraud and abuse in federal programs was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-2163.htm">02-2163 -- PAYTON V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 07/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Was terminated from the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for planting and harvesting wheat on a thirty five acre parcel that had been dedicated as a conservation reserve. Payton contends that the Department was mistaken about the location of the conservation reserve. Payton is correct. The Hearing Officer was overruled by the Acting Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD). The questions before us are whether the decision of the Acting Director is subject to judicial review and. Whether it was arbitrary and capricious.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1291a.html">FRANK TAMBONE INC V. AGRI<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611571.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sore within the meaning of the Horse Protection Act. When she was entered in a horse show in Shelbyville. A ticket was issued charging Christopher Jerome Zahnd. Zahnd stopped for several hours at a horse sale and a stall had not been procured for the use of Lady Ebony's Ace before the show. 2 When Lady Ebony's Ace was unloaded from the trailer. After she was unloaded. Lady Ebony's Ace was examined by Zahnd and Larry Joe Appleton Jr. Who was acting as Zahnd's groom for the night. Lady Ebony's Ace was then examined by Charles Thomas. The purpose of that examination is to determine whether the horse is sore. That is. Whether a horse has been abused with chemical or mechanical devices and will feel pain when moving. The horse is observed as it walks around a cone. The feet and legs of the horse are palpated with thumb pressure. Thomas did not find a violation of the Horse Protection Act. 3 Lady Ebony's Ace was then examined by Dr. Lady Ebony's Ace walked slowly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1109.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Tina Potuto Kimble. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Jeffrey Kahn. The pertinent statutory scheme operates as follows: A group of producers of a particular agricultural commodity who feel they have been adversely affected by imports of agricultural products are entitled to file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture seeking certification of eligibility for adjustment assistance. The Secretary is required to certify the commodity producers for adjustment assistance if the Secretary determines (1) that the national average price for the particular commodity in the most recent marketing year is less than 80 percent of the national average price for that commodity for the five previous years and (2) that increases in imports of that commodity or of goods directly competitive with it have contributed importantly to the price decline. 19 U.S.C. § 2401a(c). In the event a producer group is certified. Any individual producer covered by that group certification is eligible for certain non monetary benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE60298E19EE09DC88256E8D0072BCE7/$file/0272424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leavitt is automatically substituted as a party respondent for Christie Whitman. 5953 VIGIL v. Who are interested Phoenix residents. Assert that EPA's actions are arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the Act because EPA approved Arizona's general permit rule for controlling agricultural emissions without requiring all feasible measures and. Petitioners argue that it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to grant an extension of the statutory deadline to December 31. Regional governments or associations of governments have played a role in the proceedings before EPA. In this opinion we will generally refer to these entities as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A025825D476AEF7588256E5A00707B88/$file/9955634.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Is a restaurant that buys wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural commodities and uses them in the preparation of meals </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1390p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will now affirm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1139.htm">00-1139 -- CHERRY V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 07/18/2001<BR></A><BR> The District Ranger determined that plaintiff's operations would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-0002a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDDEC92ABBF2F97288256F0200588996/$file/0272424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leavitt is automatically substituted as a party respondent for Christie Whitman. 12505 VIGIL v. Is amended as follows: 1. Insert the following: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF28E68F4D95C8C882572F300826DA5/$file/0655054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We address whether this generic advertising is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0319p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary determined that the sanction of license revocation was appropriate after concluding that MacClaren had committed sixty one violations of PACA. The Secretary erred in failing to consider the remedial purpose of PACA and all relevant circumstances and imposed a sanction that is without justification in fact. No. 02 3006 MacClaren began doing business in the 1920s and was issued a PACA license in 1974. Is owned and managed by Gregory MacClaren. Who were paid on commission. Gottlob and Johnston voluntarily gave statements to the investigators admitting that they had altered USDA inspection certificates and denying that Gregory MacClaren or Darrell Moccia were aware of their actions. Olds and Gottlob were directed to call each shipper affected by the altered inspection certificates. Only continued working for MacClaren for about a month and a half until he was terminated for poor work performance. He held that because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AB97A93855E957888256A68005A5C02/$file/9955634.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Is a restaurant that buys wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural commodities and uses them in the preparation of meals </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/005056.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this appeal is whether. Are sellers of perishable agricultural commodities and beneficiaries of a statutory trust provided for by PACA. 1 are buyers of these perishable agricultural commodities and became statutory trustees under PACA upon purchase of such goods. Who allegedly was converting. Menadier is the sole shareholder and President of Packed Fresh Produce. That injunctive relief was futile when the PACA trust assets were already being depleted. The District Court should have granted the injunction sought. We will reverse and remand. Appellants' evidence includes the following: copies of Appellees' checks to Appellants that were returned for insufficient funds. Copies of Appellees' checks that were post dated as late as March 2000 for already overdue balances. 2 that Appellees often promised partial payment or assured Appellants that payment was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-2212.htm">03-2212 -- MCKOWN V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 05/14/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appellants and siblings. Appeal the final decision of the United States Department of Agriculture (the USDA) finding that they have an obligation to refund $10. 598 in overpayment under a Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) and that no further payments were due to either plaintiff. Plaintiffs appellants allege that the agency misled them about what forms they were required to complete and that it acted in bad faith during a failed mediation. <p> The parties appeared by consent and designation before a magistrate judge for the District of New Mexico. That the agency was not bound by conditions that it had accepted during the course of failed mediation. <p> We may hear appeals from the decisions of magistrate judges entered by consent and designation. Anderson</a> <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-2305.htm">01-2305 -- SANDERS LAND & CATTLE CO. V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE -- 10/09/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Sanders Land &. Cattle Co. owned the land and was eligible to participate in the CRP. While agreeing that the warranty deed is in David and Carolyn Sanders individual names. Cattle Co. was not eligible for enrollment in the CRP. Conclusions if we determine they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051547P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clason was entitled to repay the loan at an advantageous rate when he sold. Clason was required to make physical delivery of the corn to the buyer. He agreed not to move the corn from where it was stored on his property or to co mingle it with other corn without the CCC's approval. The interest rate was set at 5.875% and payment was due in July. Several weeks before the loan was due. It had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1312.htm">00-1312 -- SPAGNOLA V. STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE -- 07/13/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Following his resignation as a tenured professor at Colorado State University (CSU or the University). Its conclusion that he was not constructively discharged from his position with CSU. 876 (10th Cir. 2001) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by record). <p> These are the facts viewed in Spagnola's favor. He was offered a position at another university. Spagnola was offered. 1983. <em>Id.</em> Because Spagnola was . It is undisputed that he had a property interest in his position with the University. The issue here is whether he voluntarily resigned or . Was constructively discharged. <p> To determine whether Spagnola resigned voluntarily or was constructively discharged. The factors we consider in making this determination include <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1390a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed in this case on July 31. 1996 be amended as follows: the language contained in footnote 1 is to be deleted and replaced with the following: As set forth by the district court in its December. The Secretary's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Sani Dairy was granted because Sani Dairy. Or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200610/06-5010a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Kristine H. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Wendy M. Pikofsky. 2 Marvin Beshore was on the brief for appellee Dairy Farmers of America. We need not reach the question whether Edaleen is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because Edaleen has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies as required by the AMAA. I. Milk markets in the United States are governed by a complex system of price controls that dates back to the Depression era. The money that handlers pay into the producer settlement fund is then redistributed to milk producers at a uniform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012086.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that they are arbitrary and capricious because gross revenue is defined to include pass through funds in this case. The district court held that the applicable regulations were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FADCFEB6A80E352688256C3E005866EC/$file/0115159.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> VENEMAN is substituted for her predecessor DAN GLICKMAN. NORTON is substituted for her predecessor BRUCE BABBITT. The action is a challenge to Proposition 4. Five different groups of parties are involved in this litigation. The state parties and sponsors appeal the district court's summary judgment granting declaratory relief to the Audubon plaintiffs on the ground that relevant portions of Proposition 4 are preempted by the federal Endangered Species Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5244a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Frank W. Christmas and Easter are the busiest times of year for The Original Honey Baked Ham Company of Georgia. The question in this appeal from the judgment of the district court is whether the retail stores supplying the kiosks are subject to certain federal inspection requirements imposed by those statutes. The hams are sliced and glazed. Both items are packaged for sale. Where its hams and turkeys are sliced. Which are booths with refrigeration units. As far as the company's hams are concerned. For the purposes of any examination and inspection said inspectors shall have access at all times. Whenever pro cessing operations are being conducted. The Poul try Inspection Act's definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EAEDD61359E4AF0A88256C8700814318/$file/0115159.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> VENEMAN is substituted for her predecessor DAN GLICKMAN. NORTON is substituted for her predecessor BRUCE BABBITT. Is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. It is not preempted by the ESA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1357.htm">00-1357 -- SCHRODER V. BUSH -- 08/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-4470%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 KATZMANN. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQ0NzAgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/03-4470%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for review are granted in part and denied in part. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ERIC E. We find that several aspects of the regulation violate the express terms of the Clean Water Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Statutory Background The Clean Water Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/952371P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that the challenged actions and inactions of the Secretary of Agriculture are reviewable. The red meat producers did not have standing. Holding that the actions and decisions of the Secretary of Agriculture challenged by appellants are not subject to judicial review. have appealed that determination. Defendant below was Mike Espy. Who was Secretary of Agriculture at the time appellants brought this action. The Secretary is responsible for implementing both the Poultry Products Inspection Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5244a.html">ORIGINAL HONEY BAKED V. GLICKMAN DANIEL R.<BR></A><BR> With her on the briefs were <i><p> Frank W. Christmas and <p> Easter are the busiest times of year for The Original Honey <p> Baked Ham Company of Georgia. 21 U.S.C. <p> 451 <i>et seq.</i> The question in this appeal from the judgment <p> of the district court is whether the retail stores supplying the <p> kiosks are subject to certain federal inspection requirements <p> imposed by those statutes.<p> <p> The Honey Baked Ham Company purchases its hams and <p> turkeys from federally inspected meat and poultry pro <p> cessors. The hams are sliced and glazed. <p> both items are packaged for sale. Where its <p> hams and turkeys are sliced. Which are booths with <p> refrigeration units. As far as <p> the company's hams are concerned. For the purposes of any <p> examination and inspection said inspectors shall have <p> access at all times. Whenever pro <p> cessing operations are being conducted. The Poul <p> try Inspection Act's definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314265.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the regulations under which he was convicted are facially unconstitutional and violate the separation of powers principle. Because the regulations were promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-1283a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were James Michael Kelly. Circuit Judge: The petitioners in this case are Kleiman & Hochberg. (K&H) is a New York corporation operated out of the Hunts Point Terminal Market in the Bronx. The [supplier] is at a 3 disadvantage. The [United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)] inspection process is intended to level the playing field by providing the faraway [supplier] with an independent evaluation of the produce's condition so he can be assured that the price he receives is fair. An inspector who received a bribe might furnish a falsified certificate indicating that the produce's condition was worse than it actually was. Buyers who had to wait for inspections were likely to receive lower prices when the goods were eventually resold. 4 In 1999. Was caught taking bribes. The Service determined that both Michael and Barry Hirsch were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5310a.html">MILK TRAIN, INC., ET AL V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Yale argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/013257P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lane (the Lanes) are before this Court for the third time pursuing attorney's fees from the United States Department of Agriculture (the Agency) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2000). We concluded the appeal to the NAD was an adversary adjudication under the Administrative Procedures Act thus attorney's fees were available under the EAJA. The NAD hearing officer found the Lanes were prevailing parties. The Agency's position in the underlying denial of delinquent loan servicing was not substantially justified. While the FSA's administrative appeal was pending. Because the agency decision was not final. The challenge was dismissed as premature. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. The district court correctly recognized its authority to modify the fee award is limited to situations where the fee award was unsupported by substantial evidence. In </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4101.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/98-3001a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Jr. were on the brief. Concluded that the statute is ambiguous as to whether it includes the Secretary of Agriculture and. Determined that the Secretary was not covered.1 Before us. The issues before us are questions of statutory interpretation. No deference is appropriate. avoidance of constitutional questions. Both appellee and the district court have interpreted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Replace case number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3CA831F7A55F652088256A8C00555424/$file/9935755.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties were not able to reach a settlement. The administrative record was filed on September 1. Both parties agreed to have the case decided by a magistrate judge and both moved for summary judgment. Arguments were heard on February 16. Judgment was entered on May 21. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Anchustegui's permit was renewed through December 31. A letter was sent to Anchustegui by the district ranger. Noting that it would be necessary to perform an evaluation as required by the National Environmental Policy Act in order to determine if the management of the rangeland resources was in compliance with the current laws and regulations (i.e. Although there was documentation of instances during the 1995 grazing season when Anchustegui was found not to have been in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. A new permit was issued on April 1. Concentrated use in the riparian areas and several of the upland areas that occurred last year was unacceptable and exceed [sic] the utilization standards in your permit and can not be allowed to continue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2018p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The grant of a development easement 2 was a disposition of an interest in the farmland. We will reverse. Was not as a dairy farm. Its value was $349. Taxpayer was the executor of his father's estate and its sole heir. Which was enacted. Development easements are closely akin to the more commonly referenced </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/47EEC9FC6003AF4888256F040056C48D/$file/0335498.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the Department's offer was not arbitrary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Monument Act was passed to protect the ecosystem created by the eruption. It is the sense of the Congress that in the case of mineral and geothermal interests such exchanges should be completed within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. More than twenty years after the Monument Act was enacted. B. The Partnership's Mineral Interests The Partnership is the owner of patented mineral interests on about 604 acres of land located within the boundaries of the Monument. The Norway Sweden Group is located at the head of Spirit Lake. Determined the copper deposits were too small and of too low grade to develop. 16% of this area is under water and most of the remainder is covered with blown down timber. The United Group is located on the east side of a ridge that separates Spirit Lake and the Green River drainage. Natural vegetation has returned to this area after the eruption and guided walks are led on the land. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-6575.man.html">MILLER V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. FARM SERVICES AGENCY (6/17/1998, NO. 97-6575)<BR></A><BR> These state committees are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-8060.htm">99-8060 -- COALITION FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES INC. V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR> Also found that the Coalition had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Endangered Species Act does not require federal agencies to adopt particular conservation measures. <p> We hold that this case is not yet ripe. The Coalition is challenging the Forest Service's inaction. This inaction is not sufficiently final for review. The Forest Service is currently a cooperating agency in developing a conservation strategy for the Platte River species and is also revising its forest plan for the Medicine Bow. We conclude that judicial review is not warranted at this time. Is a comprehensive scheme for the protection of listed endangered and threatened species and their habitat. The Act's ultimate goal is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5099.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Pullum (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5009b.html">ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. GLICKMAN DANIEL<BR></A><BR> </i>United States Attorney <p> at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Harris Weinstein</i> argued the cause for appellant National <p> Association for Biomedical Research. Javitt</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Katherine A. Stanley</i> was on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Andrew L. Frey </i>was on the briefs for <i>amicus curiae</i> <p> Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.<p> <p> <i>Leslie G. Hedg <p> peth</i> were on the briefs for <i>amicus</i> <i>curiae</i> The Jane Goodall <p> Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them <p> available to members of the public. <i>See id.</i><p> <p> The individual plaintiffs. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the <p> injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in <p> observing animals living under humane conditions. <i>See Ani <p> mal Legal Defense Fund. <p> 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on <p> all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Brian C. With her on the brief were Peter D. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Because the RAC is an agent of the United States. BACKGROUND I At the heart of this case is the administration of the AMAA. The AMAA was originally enacted during the Depression. Producers the principal purposes of which are to raise the price of agricultural products and to establish an orderly system for marketing them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972533.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which Bell Arthur claims was in its service area. The district court ruled that Bell Arthur did not meet two threshold requirements of § 1926(b) and therefore was not entitled to its protection. The protection is limited to (1) the time period during which the association has a federal loan outstanding from the Farmer's Home Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-6575.man.html">MILLER V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. FARM SERVICES AGENCY (6/17/1998, NO. 97-6575)<BR></A><BR> These state committees are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/973282P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal involves two separate cases which were consolidated before the district court. Sitting by designation. 21 v. which is located in the Superior National Forest along the United States and Canadian border in Minnesota. Are articulated in the Forest Service's BWCA Wilderness Management Plan and Implementation Schedule of 1993 (the Wilderness Plan). Was among the initial wilderness areas designated for protection. It is a heavily visited wilderness area. Though motorized vehicle use is severely restricted. The only specific guidance given to the Secretary concerning these quotas was a statutory cap on motorboat use. Which is the challenged agency action in this suit. The Record of Decision explains that the available information indicated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/94-0002b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The application is denied. Smaltz . . . is hereby appointed Independent Counsel with full power. The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate other allegations or evidence of violation of any federal criminal law. The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate any violation of 28 U.S.C. 1826. The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to seek indictments and to prosecute any organizations or individuals involved in any of the matters described above. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including organizations or individuals who have engaged in any unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Independent Counsel shall have all the powers and authority provided by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. It is FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the Independent Counsel. Shall have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prosecute the subject matter with respect to which the Attorney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0607n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5009b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Javitt were on the briefs. Stanley was on the briefs. Frey was on the briefs for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Hedg peth were on the briefs for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them available to members of the public. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. [he is] very familiar with the needs of and proper treatment of wildlife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0078p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Constituted income from the trade or business of farming that was subject to the self employment tax pursuant to § 1401 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court agreed with the Wuebkers' position that the payments constituted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3185.html">ALBERT E. BIVINGS V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were</p> <u> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTEwNzItYWdfc28ucGRm/06-1072-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3148.html">WILLIAM R. SHOAF V. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D27F20CCE6A98CF88256E5A00707BED/$file/9935755.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties were not able to reach a settlement. The administrative record was filed on September 1. Both parties agreed to have the case decided by a magistrate judge and both moved for summary judgment. Arguments were heard on February 16. Judgment was entered on May 21. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Anchustegui's permit was renewed through December 31. A letter was sent to Anchustegui by the district ranger. Noting that it would be necessary to perform an evaluation as required by the National Environmental Policy Act in order to determine if the management of the rangeland resources was in compliance with the current laws and regulations (i.e. Although there was documentation of instances during the 1995 grazing season when Anchustegui was found not to have been in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. A new permit was issued on April 1. Concentrated use in the riparian areas and several of the upland areas that occurred last year was unacceptable and exceed [sic] the utilization standards in your permit and can not be allowed to continue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-5310b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R It is ORDERED. 2002 is amended as follows: Page 2. With him on the briefs were Kristine H. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: The question in this appeal is whether the Secretary of Agriculture's implementation of a 1999 subsidy program for milk producers was inconsistent with the statutory requirement that payments be made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7079.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Requires a plaintiff to prove that an allegedly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946684.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22B35A3B7A2747D28825725F0053C952/$file/0671671.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a determination by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) that certain government employees are professionals is an order involving an appropriate collective bargaining unit determination. If it is. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq.1 The National Association of Agriculture Employees (NAAE) is a union that until recently represented federal agricultural inspectors stationed at the nation's borders and ports. NAAE challenges the FLRA's finding that the inspectors are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/757EDEC843604EBA882571D900811E23/$file/0416149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Elaine Zieroth are substituted as parties to this appeal for their predecessors Ann M. Is reasonable. The Fitzgeralds maintain a residence on the property and have used and continue to use the ranch as a base camp for their cattle grazing operations in the adjacent Sitgreaves National Forest.1 The property contains a house. When the property was surveyed in 1916. The Sitgreaves and Apache Forests were administratively combined and are sometimes referred to jointly as the Apache Sitgreaves National Forests. 1 10466 THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. The property was surrounded by the Sitgreaves National Forest or by lands owned by third parties. The property was completely surrounded by the Sitgreaves National Forest. There were several access routes to the property through the national forest. To continue using the road.2 The request was made pursuant to the Forest Service's determination that FDR 56B was no longer needed for public use and pursuant to its program of having all uses under permit. The case was dismissed as moot when the proposed easement expired.3 In January. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1175.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1530.htm">01-1530 -- HULEN V. YATES -- 03/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Other co conspirators whose identities are presently unknown</a>. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under the qualification of the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTcyNzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-7275-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that Crowley had probable cause as a matter of law to arrest plaintiff and was thus entitled to judgment. We find that the denial of attorneys' fees and costs 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 to defendant Jurnove was not an abuse of discretion. therefore reverse in part and affirm in part. Crowley was found liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the false arrest of plaintiff Sylvia Panetta. Defendant Marc Jurnove was held not liable for claims of malicious prosecution and conspiring to subject Panetta to false arrest. That he was entitled to qualified immunity. Crowley was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sylvia Panetta was abusing her horse. All of which they claimed was evidence that the horse was not properly cared for or provided proper food. Jurnove also represented that he had received advanced equine training and was certified in evaluating the physical status of horses. Jurnove provided Crowley with a written statement indicating that he was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981906.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold today that because the discussion on appellate jurisdiction in Forney is founded upon specific language located within the Social Security Act. We will dismiss Kreider's appeal (No. 98 1982) for lack of jurisdiction. We find that we do have appellate jurisdiction over the timely appeal filed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982134.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The procedural and factual history of this case are extensively summarized in this court's opinion in HRWC I. Only a brief synopsis of the facts and procedural history is set forth here. The case was submitted to the district court on cross motions for summary judgment based on the administrative record. Holding that the EIS was not arbitrary and capricious. This court held that the Agencies had: (1) violated NEPA by failing to take a sufficient </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D415F1D6386BB99B88256D8F0073C5C5/$file/0216009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held it did not have jurisdiction over this action because (i) Citizens failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the Rule threatened their concrete interests as their complaint was directed to neither a site specific project nor a particular forest plan. (ii) Citizens failed to show any imminent injury and thus their claims are not ripe. Reverse and remand to the district court to determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Historical Overview Background National forests and grasslands are managed by the United States Forest Service. An agency within the United States Appellants are Citizens for Better Forestry. It is this highest tier type of regulation (hereinafter referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/772DBEE0A970D8DC88257060004C8055/$file/0535264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. Is deleted and replaced by the following footnote 17: 17. USDA instituted a policy of barring the importation of ruminants1 and ruminant products from countries where BSE was known to exist. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE was first diagnosed in England in the late 1980s. It conRuminants are hoofed mammals generally defined by their fourchambered stomachs and their practice of chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated. BSE is a species of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C1220D3EB1B58B688256C690058FF60/$file/0116310.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to determine whether or not we have jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction to reach the merits of this appeal. It will be pursuant to the collateral order doctrine out 6 THOMAS v. I. The history of this case is more thoroughly described in Thomas v. Is deaf and relies upon the assistance of her guide dog. Thomas and Amazing Grace were accordingly escorted to the airport quarantine station where Amazing Grace was to be held for 120 days or until Thomas left Hawaii. After Thomas was initially told that Amazing Grace would have to stay at a quarantine station cottage or the airport quarantine station. She was given a letter from James Nakatani. NAKATANI 7 sional quarantine agreement that Thomas had entered into with Foppoli and Sturges as illegal and stated that the 120 day quarantine period applied to Amazing Grace as it would have applied to any other canine entering Hawaii. Was soon to decide whether Congress had validly abrogated state sovereign immunity when it enacted the ADA. NAKATANI Thomas' ADA claims were brought under Title II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991478.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Leonard Traficanti is the owner and operator of LT's Gas/Snaks. The Department of Agriculture launched an undercover operation to determine whether either the owner or the employees of LT's were trafficking in food stamps. White was upset with Traficanti because he made her take a polygraph test to determine if she was stealing from the store. White bought food stamps illegally in order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/983757P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants are vegetable farmers in Arkansas who received disaster relief payments from the United States Department of Agriculture (the agency) for crop damage in 1989 due to weather related conditions. The agency demanded a refund of these payments after learning that the appellants' crop damage was also due in part to the farmers' application of a chemical which they later learned had been defective. Not knowing that the fungicide was contaminated with a defoliating herbicide. Not yet knowing or realizing that the chemical was contaminated. This emergency disaster assistance was only available to farmers who suffered a crop loss of 50% or more that was due to weather related conditions in 1989. The farmers further represented to the jury that while only 30% of their crop damage was due to weather conditions alone. Without specifying whether this award was discounted due to the disaster relief benefits the farmers had received from the government. The damage award against DuPont was for crop losses sustained in both the 1989 and 1990 growing seasons. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4059.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the Forest Service's approval of the project was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/06-1199a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James Michael Kelly. That the employment restrictions were unlawful. Because we conclude that the agency's actions were proper. Was enacted in 1930 to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in fresh fruits and vegetables. Is a New York produce wholesaler whose PACA license was originally issued in 1986. All of whom were part owners: Daniel F. The producer is at a disadvantage. The USDA's inspection process is intended to level the playing field by providing the faraway producer with an independent evaluation of the produce's condition so he can be assured that the price he receives is fair. After their transaction is complete. The inspection certificate is of little use in subsequent transactions. If the initial buyer is a wholesaler like CSI. It sells the produce to another buyer who is typically able to personally inspect the produce at Hunts Point. An inspector who received a bribe might furnish a falsified certificate indicating that the produce's condition was worse than it actually was. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8058.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant intervenors are appealing the district court's order. The proposed rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1172p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. The Parties Keystone was a farm cooperative that processed and sold food products. Food products on Keystone's premises were not included in Keystone's inventory unless and until Keystone actually purchased them. It is undisputed that the Bank had first priority with respect to these items. Are Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board. The primary contract was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/94-6684.opa.html">TRM, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TRM. Except when cash is returned as change in a transaction in which coupons were accepted in payment for eligible food.... This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A12983071711CF4882570490055E969/$file/0535264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USDA instituted a policy of barring the importation of ruminants1 and ruminant products from countries where BSE was known to exist. We reverse.2 Ruminants are hoofed mammals generally defined by their fourchambered stomachs and their practice of chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE was first diagnosed in England in the late 1980s. BSE is a species of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AF08DF9D1F26DD5D88256CA3007F75A1/$file/0135690.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Within seven years after the Act was passed. To what extent its management decisions have impacted the wilderness character of the areas as they existed in 1977. Arguing that the district 1 The remaining counts were either dismissed or subsumed by Count I. USFS 93 court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the APA and should not have granted summary judgment for the Wilderness Association. USFS [2] The Forest Service argues that this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/97-5163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Levine were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Rotker was on the brief. Was on the brief for amici curiae States of Minne sota. Was on the brief for amici curiae State of Connecticut. Eric Rome was on the brief for amici curiae Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. Delpit were on the brief for amici curiae Commissioners of the Louisiana. That the delegation was lawful. The congressional action here is not substantially different from countless pieces of contingent legislation enacted by Congress over the last few decades including many that have been challenged and upheld by the courts. Appellant asserts that the instant delegation is somehow different be cause it involves an interstate compact. This claim is merit less. We have no doubt that. We hold that the delegation is constitutional. Thus his decision is not arbitrary and capricious under the APA. A principal objective of the Compact is to preserve dairy farms in the Compact states. The Compact's voting requirements are designed to ensure that the Commission does not pass any over order prices without the broad consensus of the Compact states. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16A2BEC5B0289AE488256C6500015E81/$file/0135729.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Appellees Harv Forsgren and the United States Forest Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992153P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S. Department of Agriculture was reorganized in 1994. We will use the traditional acronym. Buchholz was given written notice that she must improve her work performance in sixty days or be terminated. Asserting she is entitled to injunctive relief and damages under Bivens v. Mariellen Ross appeal a district court order denying them qualified immunity on the grounds that Buchholz possessed a constitutionally protected interest in her employment and the procedures by which she was terminated did not comport with clearly established due process law. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. Many ASCS operations have been staffed by State. Both county employees such as Buchholz and county executive directors are federal employees. They fall outside the federal civil service because of the way they are hired and appointed. They are serious types of malfeasance. These separations are limited to specified grounds. These are termination actions taken by a county executive director </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956778.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 7 U.S.C. § 499h(b): (1) whether the employment bar provision is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. (2) whether a licensed employer can challenge a previous determination that an employee is barred from employment by a licensee. (3) whether a thirty day suspension of the employer's license was legally warranted and factually justified. Jimmy Mims ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/94-0002l.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-10576.opn.html">ARES V. MANUEL DIAZ FARMS, INC. (1/17/2003, NO. 02-10576)<BR></A><BR> That Ares was an exempt agricultural employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We affirm the district court's decision. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/032522p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The American public is very familiar with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-6684.opa.html">TRM, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TRM. Except when cash is returned as change in a transaction in which coupons were accepted in payment for eligible food.... This is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963285P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the District Court's order that Plaintiffs. Are entitled to recover their attorney fees from the United States Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BF7269BE348D0F788257077004F61F8/$file/0316535.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are amended as follows: At slip op. 14. That the Act was not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled subsidy challenge because the assessments funded government speech. He would now remand to the district court pursuant to the Court's statement in Johanns that an as applied challenge might lie </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5438a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the motion to dismiss filed by plaintiffs appellees Alternative Research and Development Foundation. Were on a pleading in support of the motion to dismiss. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C4840FD0B589A9488256BA000504E8B/$file/0017378.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for her predecessor in office under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 5943 5944 MCBRIDE COTTON AND CATTLE CORP. v. Or beneficiary who is a delinquent debtor on an agricultural loan administered by the USDA. None of the plaintiffs is a delinquent debtor. We hold that the exhaustion requirement of 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) is not jurisdictional. We further hold that exhaustion is excused because the plaintiffs' complaint alleges collateral. I Because it is relevant to our discussion of the jurisdictional issue. These contracts are seven year contracts. Plaintiff Running Water Land & Cattle Inc. is a corporation whose president is John Mitchell. Shareholders are members of the Mitchell family. Before Running Water was incorporated. Asserting that it was not timely. Plaintiff Thompson Farm is a Texas general partnership that was formed in 1975. Roger Thompson is a partner. As are two other family members. Are outstanding. There is no record that an administrative appeal was requested. Plaintiff Brandstatt Family Trust (the Trust) was created in January 1995 by J.M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041884P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The housing units at issue were the Charleston Apartments. Forty seven of the fifty units were occupied. The Housing Authority was required to use the Charleston Apartments as public housing. The USDA characterized the payment as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/964228U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1233.html">RIDGE RUNNER FORESTRY V. ANN M. VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055062np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the Ordilles' claims of discrimination in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act are barred by the Act's statute of limitations. As that statute was modified by Public Law 105 277. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mary and Richard Ordille are married blueberry farmers with a long history of difficulties with the Farm Service Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/94-0002d.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is hereby ORDERED that the application for the referral of a relat ed matter is denied for the reasons set forth in the accompa nying opinion. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the underlying filings of the Independent Counsel and the Attorney General. The application is denied. Smaltz ... is hereby appointed Independent Counsel with full power. The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate other allegations or evidence of violation of any federal criminal law. The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate any violation of 28 U.S.C. s 1826. The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to seek indictments and to prosecute any orga nizations or individuals involved in any of the matters described above. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including organizations or individu als who have engaged in any unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-5222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard T. With him on the brief was Phillip L. With him on the brief were David W. Cooper is a member. The United States is likely to provide an estimated $2 billion in debt relief and monetary payments in consideration for the dismissal of the class' complaint alleging that USDA systematically discriminated against them on the basis of their race. Cooper contends instead that the benefits of the consent decree are illusory because USDA has 1 Mr. Cooper is the only member of the class to appeal although in noting his appeal he purported to file on behalf of himself individually and as a representative of a class of African American farmers. None of those persons is a named appellant. The Secretary of Agriculture are appellees. reserved the right in paragraphs 19 and 21 to undo the decree by regulatory fiat. No basis exists to conclude that USDA would promul gate such a regulation under laws in effect when the decree was approved by the district court. Cooper's con tention concerning the limitation of the district court's author ity by paragraph 21 is inconsistent with the plain language of that provision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042442p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the reasons The East Side Project is an effort by the United States Forest Service to address. The one half million acre ANF was established in September 1923. It is the only National Forest in Pennsylvania. 4 2 1 that follow. We will affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment. The forests were in varying stages of recovery from natural catastrophes such as fires and windthrow.4 David A. Which are very shade tolerant trees. Were the most common species. By Because these facts are not in dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-10576.opn.html">ARES V. MANUEL DIAZ FARMS, INC. (1/17/2003, NO. 02-10576)<BR></A><BR> That Ares was an exempt agricultural employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We affirm the district court's decision. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3316.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. BACKGROUND Goines was employed as a Construction Representative at the Agricultural Research Service. He was removed for: (1) failure to follow supervisory instructions on business communications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6617B6B05891E779882571860078278E/$file/0416003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is widely regarded as one of the world's most destructive fruit pests. The species originated in sub Saharan Africa and is not established in the United States. The first U.S. mainland infestation was reported in Florida in 1929. Several infestations have been reported since then. Are believed to have prevented the pest from becoming permanently established. The medfly is viewed as a serious threat to California's agricultural sector and general economy. Because many believe that California's recent medfly outbreaks have been caused by the importation of infested fruit. It is unsurprising that California growers are wary of fruit brought from other parts of the world. There are those who believe that the growers' position is motivated as much or more by their desire to protect themselves against foreign competition in the multi billion dollar domestic produce market. It is within that context that this case arises. Medfly larvae were discovered in fruit imported from Spain. Plaintiffs argue that the USDA must identify the level of risk it will accept in performing its duty </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-5161a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982818P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that there had been no final agency action and therefore the case was not ripe for review. I. BACKGROUND This is the second time these parties have been before this court and we will only briefly recount the lengthy factual and procedural history of this case. The Lanes borrowed money from what was formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). That the decision of the National Appeals Division adjudicative officer is final. That judicial review is not available until the administrative appeals proceeding has produced a final agency decision. It reasoned that the agency action was not yet final. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/022915P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allowed farmers and ranchers who were delinquent in payments on various agricultural loans to The Honorable Rodney S. The amount of recapture by [USDA] will be based on the difference between the value of the security at the time of disposal or cessation by Borrower of farming and the value of the security at the time this Agreement is entered into. If the borrower violates the term of this agreement [USDA] will liquidate after the borrower has been notified of the right to appeal. The government's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was accompanied by a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and six documentary exhibits. Exhibits 1 and 5 were the Agreement and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995113.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole question presented by this appeal is whether restaurants are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3340.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Board held that no further relief was available to Cordero because respondent. BACKGROUND In April 2000 Cordero was reassigned from the position of Plant Protection Technician ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951735P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. PACA was enacted to protect produce growers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug05/03-50288-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1435.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were on brief. Were on brief. Because Chevron is still the law of the land. The Act is designed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AE8C752D9F8836788256CAE00581170/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0198p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was proper. The Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service conducted an undercover investigation of Michigan Express to ensure it was complying with food stamp laws and regulations. Abdallah that Michigan Express was disqualified from participating in the food stamp program. Ajami faced civil penalty if Michigan Express was sold or otherwise transferred. This office has determined that it will not pursue a False Claims Act action or other federal action against you for alleged food stamp trafficking at Michigan Express. Which read s: In the event any retail food store or wholesale food concern which has been disqualified is sold or the ownership thereof is otherwise transferred to a purchaser or transferee. We will affirm if a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element on which it would bear the burden at trial. If a party claims the government is estopped from making an argument. Summary judgment is appropriate in favor of the government if there is an insufficient showing for any of the estoppel elements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/031400P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 in farm program benefits on the grounds he was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1040.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mizner</U> was on brief. Were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1487.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-1342a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Gary C. With him on the brief were James Michael Kelly. At a time when those agents were buying toma toes from JSG on behalf of their respective employers. Alleging that the Judicial Officer was proceeding from an incorrect legal premise. A later Congress summarized the purpose of PACA as fol lows: [PACA] is admittedly and intentionally a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F226F16F54F89255882573450059A797/$file/0635512.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Interlocking safeguards </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/981686P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tuttle was terminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF). Tuttle was fifty one years of age at the time of his termination. The Grain Inspection Program (Program) is the official designee of the United States Department of Agriculture's Federal Grain Inspection Service. The Program is authorized to perform official federal grain weighing and grading. The jury's disposition of that claim is not at issue on appeal. A fee funded agency is one which generates its income based upon fees paid for its services. Rather than receiving general appropriations from the state. 23 2 1 Inspector V.4 Grain Samplers are part time employees whose main duties are sampling grain and transporting grain to a licensed grain grader. Grain Inspector Is are full time regular employees who perform essentially the same function as Grain Samplers. Grain Inspector IIs are also full time regular employees whose main duties are sampling and grading grain. Grain Inspector IIs must have a grain grading license to qualify for this position. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0373p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The injunction ordered by the district court is overly broad in that it eliminates funding for programs that are constitutional. Are immune from First Amendment scrutiny. The assessments are not compelled speech. Is a lawful restraint on commercial speech. The purpose of the Pork Act is to: [A]uthorize the establishment of an orderly procedure for financing. Who are nominated by the state pork producers associations and appointed by the Secretary. Who are appointed by the Secretary based on the amount of assessments collected from importers. 7 U.S.C. § 4806(b)(1). Whose nominees are chosen by the Delegate Body and appointed by the Secretary. The Board is to develop and implement programs that fulfill the statutory mandates of promotion. Nos. 02 2337/2338 noted that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1544.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
457 JSG TRADING CORP. V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

With him

on the briefs were Gary C. With him on the

brief were James Michael Kelly. Will assume familiarity with that opinion. This

time around JSG challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

and raises three questions: (1) did the Department apply the

wrong legal standard for commercial bribery? (2) were the

payees principals in the victim companies. Thereby precluding

a finding of commercial bribery? and (3) is license revocation

excessive? Any false

or misleading statement in connection with any transaction

involving any perishable agricultural commodity which is re

ceived in interstate or foreign commerce by such commission

merchant. Or the purchase

or sale of which in such commerce is negotiated by such

broker. Or to fail or refuse truly and correctly to account and

make full payment promptly in respect of any transaction in

any such commodity to the person with whom such transaction

is had.

457 WILLIAMS FARMS OF HOMESTEAD, INC. V. RAIN AND HAIL INS. SERV.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Williams Farms of Homestead. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Plaintiffs brought this action against private insurance companies after crop loss claims on their multi peril crop insurance policies were denied. The insurance companies were reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The district court dismissed the action because it concluded that under the Federal Crop Insurance Act the exclusive remedy for such claims is an action against the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or the Secretary of Agriculture. We reverse and remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiffs are three corporate potato farmers in south Dade County. Who were the insureds under multi peril crop insurance policies issued by the defendants. Were issued policies by defendant Cigna Property and Casualty Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0947C9B7460EB3F188256F810079C396/$file/0216201.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Federal appellees' petition for panel rehearing is granted. Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. That the Forest Service's duty to maintain potential wilderness study areas in their presently existing wilderness character under the Montana Wilderness Study Act was a nondiscretionary. After our opinion was filed. That a claim under § 706(1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/97-2140.htm">97-2140 -- DIAMOND BAR CATTLE CO. V. U.S. -- 02/23/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> Kit and Sherry Laney are the owners and operators of Diamond Bar Cattle Company and Laney Cattle Company. The Laneys and their predecessors in title have used the lands at issue for cattle grazing since 1883. The companies historically have grazed their cattle on government lands by obtaining grazing permits. The first such permit was issued to plaintiffs' predecessors in title in 1907. Each company offered to pay the requested grazing fees and negotiate a permit that recognized the companies' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug05/03-50919-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949369.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31C680D3A75F5E0588256D9B0059DC48/$file/0215104.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Against various federal and state government defendants1 challenging a proposed plan for managAll of the defendant federal agencies and officials will be referenced collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1842a.html">NORINSBERG CORP V. AGRI<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-1011a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Gary C. With him on the brief were James Michael Kelly. Will assume familiarity with that opinion. This time around JSG challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and raises three questions: (1) did the Department apply the wrong legal standard for commercial bribery? (2) were the payees principals in the victim companies. Thereby precluding a finding of commercial bribery? and (3) is license revocation excessive? Any false or misleading statement in connection with any transaction involving any perishable agricultural commodity which is re ceived in interstate or foreign commerce by such commission merchant. Or the purchase or sale of which in such commerce is negotiated by such broker. Or to fail or refuse truly and correctly to account and make full payment promptly in respect of any transaction in any such commodity to the person with whom such transaction is had. This duty is breached and commercial bribery results when a seller offers consideration to a buyer's agent or employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-50919-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061403P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Davieses are farmers who entered into a ten year Shared Appreciation Agreement (SAA) with the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The Farm Service Agency (FSA)1 sought to 1 The Farmers Home Administration is now the Farm Service Agency. recapture a portion of the appreciation. Because the amount that the Secretary may recapture is based on the property's appreciation in value. The value of the appreciation is the difference between the two. The year in which the Davieses' property was first appraised. Farm appraisals were conducted pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1809 (1991). Which states that there are two types of value that may be considered in calculating a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9540.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision and order is enforced. Is estimated to be the fourth or fifth largest hog slaughterer in the United States. Hog producers deliver hogs to Excel's buying stations where the hogs are placed into a holding pen. The hogs are then transported to one of Excel's three slaughtering facilities (located in Illinois. The hogs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C8414DB519928E788257097007F104C/$file/0435053.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for the appellants and was on the briefs. Were on the brief. A six foot wide wagon road was built to the tract in 1902. FR 6746 is open year round to motorized traffic. Is in need of maintenance and reconstruction. The Forest Service states that FR 6746 was built sometime between 1900 and 1930. The non system road is 1.3 SKRANAK v. The Forest Service allowed him to have access but required that he obtain a permit. The Forest Service has blocked access entirely during those periods in which Harpole was not using it. That the conditions on the permits were reasonable. Harpole and the Skranaks have timely appealed. II [1] As the district court should have. We forbear any consideration of the Skranaks' and Harpole's easement claims under the Quiet Title Act until we determine whether we have jurisdiction. The Skranaks' and Harpole's claims are barred if they knew or should have known of the United States' adverse claim by December 28. 1988. [2] Such bar is jurisdictional. The Quiet Title Act is a waiver of sovereign immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-4796.opa.html">WILLIAMS FARMS OF HOMESTEAD, INC. V. RAIN AND HAIL INS. SERV.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams Farms of Homestead. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Plaintiffs brought this action against private insurance companies after crop loss claims on their multi peril crop insurance policies were denied. The insurance companies were reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The district court dismissed the action because it concluded that under the Federal Crop Insurance Act the exclusive remedy for such claims is an action against the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or the Secretary of Agriculture. We reverse and remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiffs are three corporate potato farmers in south Dade County. Who were the insureds under multi peril crop insurance policies issued by the defendants. Were issued policies by defendant Cigna Property and Casualty Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200109/00-5438a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the motion to dismiss filed by plaintiffs appellees Alternative Research and Development Foundation. Were on a pleading in support of the motion to dismiss. Were on the response to appellees' motion to dismiss. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements to govern the handling. While its agency petition was pending. That USDA will grant Alternative Research's petition for rulemaking to amend the USDA regulation. The district court's order denying intervention is appealable. Was not in error. Because intervention was properly denied. NABR is not a party to the action and lacks standing to appeal from the stipulated dismissal and from the order denying relief under Rule 60(b). If the right is absolute. The order is appealable and we may judge it on its merits.... [O]ur jurisdiction is identified by the neces sary incidents of the right to intervene in each particular instance. The Supreme Court postponed consideration of whether the denial of inter vention as of right was appealable until it decided the appeal on the merits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robbins and Gadsby & Hannah LLP were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We are confronted in this case with difficult issues involving the interpretation of the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act of 1930. Which is owned by Edward Koplovsky ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF7AED3870353A3E88256C8D00576B6C/$file/0135472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 01 00010 EJL *Ann Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Dale Bosworth is substituted for his predecessor. We have received amicus briefs from: Washington Legal Foundation and United States Senators Larry E. VENEMAN that the Roadless Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. An appeal was taken in both cases by intervenors. We consolidated the appeals and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Roadless Rule. The co plaintiffs joined with the Kootenai Tribe are: the BlueRibbon Coalition. There are now 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System. 2.8 million acres of roadless areas have been developed by the Forest Service. Against the Forest Service on This is perhaps reminiscent of George Orwell's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011163.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 the two section symbols added in the earlier amending order are deleted. ANILCA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043848p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked who owns the founder's surname. We are also asked whether defendants ­ the founder's grandson and his business ­ have engaged in trademark infringement. Because we conclude that plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Although the personal aspects of this dispute are not material to our resolution of this appeal. The history of the Doebler family businesses is critical to this matter. A case that is now before us for a second time. 4 A. Other family members were involved in the business as well. All three families were represented on Hybrids' board of directors as well. Jones and Camerer are officers. The Partnership's original functions were ultimately split between Partnership. Doebler III had ties to all three entities: he was partnered with his father in the Partnership and remains an owner of the successor LLC. He is co owner of Farmland. He was ­ but no longer is ­ a shareholder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1068.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robbins and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation. Based on findings that rising production costs and flat dairy prices were devastating the industry.1 The Commissioner determined that a price stabilization system was necessary. Into which each licensed milk distributor (dealer) in Massachusetts is required to pay monthly assessments ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3306.html">JANICE R. BOHAC V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel was <U>Sean P. Injury to family life are recoverable under section 1221 of the Whistleblower Protection Act. 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii). We hold that non pecuniary damages are not recoverable and that the government has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to such claims. Where the Board held that it does not have authority under 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii) to award non pecuniary damages. <U>Bohac v. Bohac then sought review in this court.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-8006.htm">00-8006 -- WHITLOCK CONSTRUCTION INC. V. GLICKMAN -- 03/29/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Whitlock Construction. We dismiss this appeal. <p> Plaintiff is a construction company which bids often on public utility works projects. The project was being funded by loans and grants from the Rural Utility Service (RUS). Which is an agency of the Department of Agriculture. The lowest bidder was Larry's. The Board determined that the bid by Larry's was deficient in several respects and decided to award the contract to plaintiff. Who was the second lowest bidder. Because the Board had not provided sufficient justification to show that Larry's was not a responsible bidder. Seeking a declaration that the RUS' actions were illegal and an abuse of discretion. Defendant's attorney raised for the first time the question of whether plaintiff's injury was redressable in light of the completion of Phase II of the water project. That it was in the public interest to resolve the issue of the RUS' authority. <u>Id.</u> at 680 82. Arguing it was not given an opportunity to submit such evidence to the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1139.html">LDG TIMBER V. GLICKMAN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0391p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 99a0391p.06 the reciprocity principle in order to further their self interest which is regarded as arising from heavy regulation through marketing orders controlling price. The effort by the Department of Agriculture to force payments from plaintiff for advertising is invalid under the First Amendment. The portions of the Mushroom Act of 1990 which authorize such coerced payments for advertising are likewise unconstitutional. The judgment of the District Court is reversed. The Mushroom Act states: It is declared to be the policy of congress that it is in the public interest to authorize the establishment of an orderly procedure for financing through adequate assessments on mushrooms produced domestically or imported into the United States. The conjunction </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210576.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Ares was an exempt agricultural employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I. Adan Ares was employed by Diaz Landscaping and Nursery. All of which is leased to Diaz Farms for use in its plant cultivation operations. Diaz Landscaping was the employer of record of all employees working at Diaz Farms from 1997 through 1999. Diaz Landscaping was not actively involved in agriculture and had no function or activity other than to lease land and employees to Diaz Farms. As we decide that Appellant is an exempt agricultural employee. This second claim is moot. Some of which is cultivated by Diaz Farms. He is a partner in the Manuel Diaz and Amelia Diaz Partnership. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200309/94-0002k.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/02-5052a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Anthony Herman and Alexander J. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043369np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that it was entitled to producer handler status under 7 C.F.R. § 1002 (Order 2)1 and. Should have been exempt from paying the fluid milk fees otherwise due to the United States Department of Agriculture's Order 2 Market Administrator (MA) from and after Order 2 was terminated and superseded by Order 1 (7 C.F.R. § 1001) on January 1. Remained in effect at all times relevant to Kreider's 1998 petition. 2 1 November 1991.2 The District Court based its grant of summary judgment on the grounds that Kreider failed to file a second application and was. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kreider Dairy Farms is a Pennsylvania family farm corporation. This goal was accomplished by creating a special </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5052a.html">TIMOTHY C. PIGFORD V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200208/02-5052b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Anthony Herman and Alexander J. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1783.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Pine Tree Legal Assistance were on brief. Participating retailers accept the stamps as if they were cash. The Secretary of Agriculture is charged with overseeing the federal aspects of the food stamp program. Income was not to include the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0294p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs in this case are dairy farmers who annually produce over 2.4 million pounds of milk. The month before the contract was signed. That the Secretary's interpretation was reasonable. The farmer is eligible for two categories of payments: (1) monthly payments on eligible production beginning the month the farmer enters into the contract and ending September 30. The Secretary shall offer to enter into contracts under this section during the period beginning on the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act [May 13. In addition to any payment that is otherwise available under this section. The cap in § 7982(d)(2) limiting payment quantity to 2.4 million pounds of milk per year was made applicable to transition period payments under § 7982(h). Seeking a declaratory judgement that dairy producers who are entitled to payments during the transition period are entitled to a lump sum payment on all the milk produced and marketed during the transition period. The court found that § 7982 does not unambiguously forbid the regulations from making transition payments subject to the cap and that the Secretary's regulation was permissible and reasonable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-50288-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-2350.htm">02-2350 -- U.S. V. MYERS -- 03/29/2004<BR></A><BR> 553 because the FSA did not have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1332.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Ram rez Lavandero & Associates were on brief for appellees. 1995 that bars the enforcement of Section Six of its Market Regulation 13.1 Section Six prohibits the importation into Puerto Rico of refined sugar intended for consumer sale that is not prepackaged in units of five pounds or less. Under our four part test for determining whether the grant or denial of preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate. (2) the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. For the purposes of this Regulation a consumer size package is one whose net content does not exceed five (5) pounds. The standard of review is deferential. We have said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5178a.html">FL AUDBN SCTY V. BENTSEN L.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5052b.html">TIMOTHY C. PIGFORD V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94o5013.html">DOTY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5121.html">WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972156U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleges that his soybean crop was damaged by adverse weather in 1994. Holding that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary or capricious. The administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-11932.opn.html">FISHERMEN AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENV'T, INC. V. CLOSTER FARMS, INC. (8/7/2002, NO. 01-11932)<BR></A><BR> We find that no permit is required. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3332.html">WILLIS CURDY V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/00-3097.htm">00-3097 -- SHORE LIMITED OPERATION PARTNERSHIP V. VENEMAN -- 02/22/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Randall and Starla Shore. We have jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982461.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the warehouses were required to complete their administrative appeal before bringing two of their other claims in federal court. Are permitted to sell without losing their price protection from the government. Any excess tobacco over the quota limit that is sold by a producer is subject to a tobacco marketing quota ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3216.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition Is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Baker's allegation that he was terminated in reprisal for whistleblowing activity. Baker was terminated after an incident involving an inappropriate reaction to the misdelivery of a personal order by the United Parcel Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982779.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the rec ords and the district court's opinions and orders and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1222.htm">00-1222 -- LAMB V. THOMPSON -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> The Forest Service is first required to develop a land resource management plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5053.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Ruth G. Of counsel on the brief were Barry P. With him on the brief were Sue Ellen Wooldridge. Of counsel on the brief was Kristina Clark. Was enacted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/053243U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stevens and Lewis are employed by the Grain Inspection. All four were among those who expressed interest in the opportunity to perform a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/033331P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lagoons were finished and became fully operational in March 2003. They are located on a 100 year flood plain for an unnamed tributary of Smith Creek. Kinross and RUSS have filed an amicus brief in which they explain they completed the project by securing other loans. Whose monthly service bills have risen from roughly $24 to $51. The distance is not controlling. 34 3 to dismiss for lack of standing. Because the alleged injury was not redressable by judicial relief. A plaintiff's injury must consist of an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent. The district court held the plaintiffs failed to allege even an imminent injury because the occurrence of a 100 year flood is by definition speculative and unpredictable. Effluent from the lagoons will spill onto and contaminate the land when a flood exceeds the height of the lagoons' embankments. The embankments will displace flood waters and increase the risk of flooding on their property. The plaintiffs have apparently abandoned the contamination argument on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR> ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0125n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At a horse show while the horse was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/97-5009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Stanley was on the briefs. Frey was on the brief for amicus curiae Phar maceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Hedg peth were on the brief for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. I. This appeal is but the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of Animal Legal Defense Fund. The plaintiffs' principal argument was that. It was joined by a different group of individual co plaintiffs: Roseann Circelli. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/961174P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hopkins was terminated from his job as Director of the Division of Grain Inspection and Warehousing (the Division) of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (the Department). The the Division was operating as a patronage organization. Which was submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture for approval. The law established For its a Personnel Advisory Board (PAB) to hear appeals of merit system employee Some merit employees were not covered by the law. 36 expressly excluded division directors from See Mo. Division directors were among the employees the Department excluded from coverage. To provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014542.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 1 2 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-9069.man.html">COLE V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9069)<BR></A><BR> Facts and Procedural History</CENTER> </P> <P> Cole is a tobacco dealer. Cole was prosecuted and acquitted of criminal charges in connection with this discrepancy. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges. He argues that he has already been acquitted of criminal charges in connection with marketing over quota tobacco and the civil penalties are a second attempt at punishment for the same conduct.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0099p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this case we are required to decide the constitutionality of Tennessee's statute making available the purchase of automobile license plates with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/951569P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Pioneer is an Iowa corporation engaged in the seed business. Numerous agreements were executed between POC. Was hired by POC at Sehgal's behest. Sawheny was unemployed but married to After an orientation period. Sawheny's primary duty was At meetings held in December 1983. The was being mismanaged. agreement with PSCL and with the approval of the Indian government. Which was deposited in a bank in Iowa. In Because POC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pioneer. He completed and signed a form stating that he was a Canadian citizen working outside of the United States. This form was filed with the appropriate income tax authorities. Pioneer acknowledged that Sawheny was a POC employee beginning on July 1. That his base salary was $30. Denied PSCL's application to have Sawheny's PSCL income declared exempt from Indian income taxes. The letter does not state that Sawheny's salary was to be tax free. Also expressly stated Joint App. at 5121. that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9ADD9D7E47C1097B88257344005879D0/$file/0515585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concurrence by Judge Wallace *Mike Johanns is substituted for his predecessor. Is sitting by designation. 10525 10528 THE ACCESS FUND v. Is many things to many people. It is a site of powerful religious and cultural signifi THE ACCESS FUND v. Cave Rock is a culturally. Native Americans who have lived in the Tahoe area for at least 1500 years. Traditional Washoe view Cave Rock as the site of important mythological events that are central to their cosmology. It is also a symbol of their cultural and religious identity. Cave Rock is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30654.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were catfish farmers. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. This court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR> ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3250.html">WILLIS V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5021a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1445.htm">99-1445 -- SIERRA CLUB-BLACK HILLS GROUP V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over the final decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022769P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants argue that the district court erred in its analysis because the advertising conducted pursuant to the Beef Act is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F406C633943AAC3588256C36005298F7/$file/0135827.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are officials within the United States government responsible for approving the timber sale. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Darroch Eagle timber sale is proposed to occur on 226 acres of the Gallatin National Forest in Montana. The proposed sale is part of a larger. Is one of approximately twelve sales earmarked to provide receipts for the land exchange. All are slated to occur within the Gallatin National Forest. The Gallatin National Forest is managed in accordance with the Gallatin National Forest Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5021a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1361a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Thomas F. Bernard and Jeremy Kyle Kinner were on the brief of amici curiae Indigenous Environmental Network. With him on the brief were Thomas L. With him on the briefs were Alan F. Nick Goldstein were on the brief of industry intervenors in support of respondent. Henderson were on the brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent. Wolff were on the brief of amicus curiae John D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are twelve states. They are opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as respondent. The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor 5 vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and that. Have jurisdiction over citizen suits to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary acts or duties. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). We have jurisdiction only if EPA thereby engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The suspect provision is a right of first refusal. Which the JO found to have the effect or potential effect of The Honorable James M. The initial bid is based upon the midpoint between the highest purchase price reported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a given week in Kansas for at least 2. If IBP's bid is rejected. As long as IBP's initial bid is no less than </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/043629P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mike Johanns is automatically substituted for his predecessor. The USFS appeals the district court's ruling the USFS did not have authority to recalculate the average actual annual motorboat use during 1976 78 within certain lake chains of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) to include uses improperly excluded from its initial base period calculation. The USFS also appeals the district court's alternate finding the recalculation was arbitrary and capricious. I A The BWCAW was one of the first wilderness areas recognized under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131 36 & note. The BWCAW was excepted from this general prohibition insofar as established motorboat use within the BWCAW and other motorboat use not undermining the ability to maintain the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052336p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court then conducted a six day 1 Although the members of the Board have been sued individually in their official capacities. Yet this apparent simplicity is deceptive. 1344 (6th Cir. 1994) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30652.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. This court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-9069.man.html">COLE V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9069)<BR></A><BR> Facts and Procedural History</CENTER> </P> <P> Cole is a tobacco dealer. Cole was prosecuted and acquitted of criminal charges in connection with this discrepancy. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges. He argues that he has already been acquitted of criminal charges in connection with marketing over quota tobacco and the civil penalties are a second attempt at punishment for the same conduct.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/00-1163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were James Michael Kelly. Are ambiguous regarding the time to appeal and. Because ss 1.142(c) and 1.145(a) are ambiguous. Because the Secretary was arbitrary and capri cious in dismissing PMD's appeal. The Judge directed that his decision and order be published pursuant to the Rules of Practice and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A464A339C21AF0488256CBB005A747C/$file/0016778.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issue in this case is whether the principle distinguishing those two cases makes the grape growers more like the nectarine. Dissemination of information </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/062590P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arkansas (Bank) appeals the district court's order affirming the decision of the Rural Business Cooperative Service (the Agency)2 Mike Johanns is automatically substituted for his predecessor. The Rural Business Cooperative Service is part of the Rural Development Agency. Which is part of the United States Department of Agriculture. 2 1 denying the Bank's loss claim for loans guaranteed by the Agency. The purpose of these loans was. The Co op was delinquent in loan payments in the amount of $447. The accounting report also indicated Co op members made contributions in the form of notes receivable totaling $1.3 million that were used as collateral for the Co op loans. A portion of the notes receivable had been written off and some were past due. Finding the Bank was negligent in servicing the loans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D4EE7493550D68088256EDD0051E482/$file/0135690o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the appropriate response is in turn to REMAND it to the originating United States District Court for the District of Montana for further consideration in light of the new United States Supreme Court decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71A061C7705237C3882571FC004939A4/$file/0436066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Was on the brief. Appellants are residents who presently live in this housing property. We affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene in the quiet title lawsuit because their interests are sufficiently protected by their APA lawsuit. Kimberly merely held that certain defenses were not available to the government in a quiet title action brought by Section 515 borrowers to enforce their contractual right to prepay their loans. Ours is an APA case brought by residents challenging the agency's noncompliance with the Emergency Low Income Housing Protection Act. Kimberly did not hold that ELIHPA was invalid or that the Department of Agriculture was free to violate it. I. Background The facts are not disputed. Section 515 of the National Housing Act of 1949 was enacted by Congress to encourage private investment in housing for elderly and low income individuals in rural areas. Which was later subsumed into RHS. UNITED STATES the housing owners agreed to rent to qualified low income tenants at affordable rates for as long as the loans were outstanding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-5079a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200108/94-0002f.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R It is ORDERED. ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion of the Independent Counsel to release the final report is granted. The purpose of this decretal paragraph is to permit any party desiring to do so to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. If no such stay is sought within the period granted by this paragraph. It is ordered that counsel for any party seeking a stay from the Supreme Court shall notify the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of that fact upon the filing of application for such stay. As we have noted before. The reporting requirement is a unique feature of the now lapsed statute creating the unique office of independent counsel. Yet potentially harmful to the reputation of persons investigated is certainly troubling. We have found it troubling in our prior pro ceedings under this statute. Especially is this so given that such a report often. The independent counsel is an attorney for the government and his release of grand jury material is covered by Rule 6(e). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1539.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Covington & Burling were on brief. Were on brief. We treat the appeal as if the appellees were a single entity. 2 No. 88 525. Although the coupons were actually disbursed by the participating states. Because overpayments were charged to the federal tab. The federal government 3 imposed a monetary sanction.2 Such fines were calculated by multiplying the total dollar value of state issued food stamps for the fiscal year times the difference between the state's EER and its TER. The state's EER was below five percent. Massachusetts makes four principal claims: (1) that the quality control provisions on which the sanction rested were no longer in effect when FNS imposed the sanction. (2) that FNS's sampling methodology was so biased as to offend the Food Stamp Act. Massachusetts contends that this legislative legerdemain undermined FNS's authority thereafter to impose sanctions for FY 1982.3 It is a hoary rule of the common law that the repeal of a statute eliminates any inchoate liability for penalties under the repealed statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612793.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The damage was caused by freezing temperatures that occurred in November and December 2000. In which the USDA had denied his request for an administrative appeal on grounds that the request was untimely. The USDA's determination denying them benefits was not unreasonable nor contrary to law. I. BACKGROUND John and Shelby Mahon are owners of a citrus nursery located in Lake County. The trees and 3 plants are grown in small containers and then sold. Their nursery is situated on approximately 126 acres. Paul Mahon is also the owner of a citrus nursery located in Lake County. His nursery is situated on five acres of land. The Mahons' citrus crops were destroyed as a result of freezing temperatures. It is unclear from the record what the familial relationship is between John and Shelby Mahon and Paul Mahon. 4 1 because the State of Florida's records showed that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a denial of an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The history of the case is set forth in Rivera Rosario v. A Stipulation for Consent Judgment was entered between the USDA and the seven plaintiffs other than Rivera. (b) the caps for accrued home leave benefits and annual leave would remain as they were. If he were freed of that constraint. This court then deemed his back pay argument waived because it was not briefed. The fees were denied. 448.50 awarded was what Rivera would have received had he accepted the 1991 settlement. He was not a prevailing party. The court found that the litigation was frivolous. As it might have. Fees must be awarded unless there are special circumstances rendering an award unjust. The USDA says Rivera is not a prevailing party because there is no causal relationship between his post 1991 pursuit of his suit and the amount he obtained. 448.50 total award was calculated by applying to his claim the same principles used to calculate the awards of the seven plaintiffs who settled in 1991. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DE3A87BD101E61E882573480057067A/$file/0536172.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which the NAD denied on the ground that the EAJA is inapplicable to NAD proceedings. Inc. because it was Montana's policy that all perennial grasses were not covered during their first year. The FSA was represented by two program specialists from the Montana FSA. Stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Fieldale is an integrated poultry company which enters into poultry growing contracts with growers. The Londons leased two other 1 A broiler is a baby chick. farms. The contracts are similar in content. Each contract is a separate agreement for the Londons' various farms: (1) contract for Green Meadows No. 1. The contracts are to run indefinitely or until thirty days after notice of termination by either party. The contracts also give Fieldale the option to terminate on only seven days notice when continuing the contractual relationship would have detrimental effects on Fieldale's business. The Londons are responsible for providing care and oversight for the broilers during the full term of the growth cycle. The Londons' responsibility is vital to the success of the business and encompasses a variety of duties. Such as maintaining adequate water and temperature for the baby chicks and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-2019.wpd.html">SANDERS V. ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DIST. OF N.M.<BR></A><BR> On appeal the District argues that it was entitled to the irrigation exemption under 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12). Even if it was not. I The District is a quasi municipal entity that delivers nonpotable water to its members during the irrigation season.(1) It serves over 90. The District's customers are either farmers engaged in agriculture or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/03-3066b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown and Barak Cohen were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. J. Gerald Hebert was on the brief for amicus curiae Campaign Legal Center in support of appellee. 2 Before: GINSBURG. The cash was apparently a reward for Valdes's searching several police databases to supply otherwise publicly available information to the informant. Valdes was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) of three counts of receiving an illegal gratuity </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052321P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This breach of contract action was brought by a group of thirteen insurance companies1 who provide federal crop insurance. Ruled in the alternative that dismissal was also warranted because the insurers had neither exhausted their administrative remedies nor established any exception to the exhaustion requirement. The FCIC was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/01-11932.opn.html">FISHERMEN AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENV'T, INC. V. CLOSTER FARMS, INC. (8/7/2002, NO. 01-11932)<BR></A><BR> We find that no permit is required. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1243.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Bray & Guillemard were on brief for appellees. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is subject to the constraints of the Dormant Commerce Clause to the same degree as are the states. Was an impermissible burden on interstate commerce hence invalid under the Dormant Commerce Clause. 1United Egg Producers is an Atlanta. Is a San Juan. Trade association representing Puerto Rican distributors of food products. 3 Section X(F) requires the labeling of eggs imported from elsewhere in the United States into Puerto Rico: Imported eggs to be marketed in Puerto Rico shall have the letters from the state of origin if produced in a state of the United States using the initials established by the United States Postal Service. Section X(F) purports to have been promulgated in conformity with the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). Puerto Rico is. This appeal presents two main questions: (1) whether section X(F) of Puerto Rico's Market Regulation Number 3 was. (2) if the Dormant Commerce Clause is applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5103.html">ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Thomas A. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Margaret Breinholt</u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jason C. Claiming that United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) regulations that restricted egg sales from and imposed other requirements on farms that tested positive for the presence of <span style='mso bidi font style:italic'>salmonella</span> bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations. Line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family: Arial'>I.<span style='mso tab coun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/94-0002h.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968686.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants argued that the subpoenas exceeded the Inspector General's statutory authority and were unduly burdensome. The district court agreed to stay enforcement pending appeal because several issues would be mooted on appeal if appellants were required to produce the subpoenaed information immediately. The Inspector General sought to determine whether CFSA program participants were complying with regulatory payment limitations. The Inspector General determined that $1.3 million in questionable disaster payments were awarded to Mitchell County program participants. DISCUSSION Due to a concern that fraud and abuse in federal programs was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1994.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives and citizens of Nigeria who legally entered the United States at different times on nonimmigrant visitor visas. Based on a well founded fear that they would be persecuted for their political opinions if forced to return to Nigeria.1 Awe is a Christian and a member of the Yoruba tribe. Their cases were consolidated for hearing by the IJ. Awe contends that two incidents in particular prove that he suffered persecution by the Nigerian government: (1) he was fired from his post as Minister of Agriculture for not paying bribes to his supervisors. (2) he endured a two hour interrogation in which he was asked about his political affiliations and whether he represented America or the CIA. The country conditions in Nigeria have gotten worse and not better. The IJ also noted that the election of a new president in Nigeria not only promised a more stable democratic government but suggested that any lingering hostility toward Awe that might have existed in the past regime would not likely be present in the new one. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031619.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Idias owns and operates a grocery store that was disqualified from the federal Food Stamp Program by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture. Idias was at a loss to explain these discrepancies to the district court. The FNS notified Idias that he was being charged with food stamp trafficking. Which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3098.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Note: This disposition is nonprecedential
409 OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND The plaintiff/appellants in this case are National Crop Insurance Services. Farmers Alliance and Alliance are both private insurance companies that provide crop insurance under the authority of the FCIA. NCIS is a trade association comprised of such companies. This case was consolidated with several other actions currently pending in the District of Minnesota brought by numerous Minnesota growers against members of NCIS. The FCIC is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture authorized to carry out the purposes of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA). The purpose of the FCIA is to
409 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Will E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Berniece A. (collectively
409 OPINION/ORDER
The sale of frozen peas and other perishable goods is regulated by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. I Crown is a defunct Illinois corporation that once operated as a federally licensed produce dealer. Eckert was Crown's president and had check signing authority.
409 OPINION/ORDER
In which petitioner Robert Heimann was found to have committed repeated violations of the Act by failing to make full and prompt * The Honorable Howard F. Heimann asserts that he was deprived of due process because the Department procedures were tainted by irrelevant. Prejudicial evidence which biased the decisionmakers and because there was blanket adoption of adverse claims. We conclude that Heimann's contentions are lacking in support. I. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act was enacted to regulate the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate commerce. 2749. perishable Department. certain unlawful. Which makes it unlawful for a PACA license applicant to make any false or misleading statements in a license application. both entities were The complaints against both companies alleged that
409 01-2145 -- MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT V. NORTON -- 06/21/2002

INTRODUCTION

Appellants are Gale Norton. The Silvery Minnow is a

409 OPINION/ORDER
Senior Circuit Judges.
409 OPINION/ORDER
Leslie Downer was denied crop subsidy payments for his 1989 crop after the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Contesting the agency decision as arbitrary and We will refer to these entities collectively as
409 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. The appellants are farmers whose discrimination claims were denied in adjudications conducted pursuant to a Consent Decree and whose petitions for review of the adverse adjudications were rejected as untimely because they were filed after the stipulated deadlines that the parties negotiated and the court approved in a Stipulation and Order (S&O). Such a claimant
409 OPINION/ORDER
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
409 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge. 2 These are appeals1 from separate orders by the district court granting summary judgment for ADM Investor Services. The appeals have been consolidated for clarity in one opinion. The price of the grain is determined by reference to a futures contract price established by the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).
409 OPINION/ORDER
Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The
352 99-8020 -- IN RE: CHAPTER 12 ESTATE OF HARRIS V. MCPHERSON TRUST -- 07/07/2000

Which are subject to a share agreement. Although the facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. Which have considered the seemingly common situation of creditors attempting to assert security interests in animals run. P. 4(a) and affirm.

352 AKINS JAMES V. FEC
352 HAMLET V. U.S.
352 OPINION/ORDER
The policies are reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (
352 97-8127 -- WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION V. BABBITT -- 01/13/2000

Concluding they (1) are contrary to Congress' clear intent under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. (2) are contrary to the Department's own regulations extending Endangered Species Act protections to all individual animals within an area where experimental and nonexperimental populations may overlap. Factual Summary

Detailed facts underlying this appeal are set forth in Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed'n v. One condition was the promulgation of nonessential experimental population rules to implement a wolf management program under section 10(j). Eventually will recolonize areas of Yellowstone and Idaho. (2) lone wolves have been confirmed to exist in or near the designated experimental population areas in Yellowstone and Idaho. Wounding or biting livestock on his land so long as the incident is reported within twenty four hours. Id. at 60264. The Parties

Appearing as Defendants/Appellants in this matter are the various governmental departments. Which were referred to this panel for resolution.

352 98-2190 -- SNELL V. GLICKMAN -- 04/02/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Richard M. Which is the same as that performed by the district court and to whose decision we owe no deference. Is narrow. Will not set aside agency action unless it is

352 OPINION/ORDER
Eleventh Circuit
352 OPINION/ORDER
Eleventh Circuit
352 97-1241 -- U.S. V. UNSER -- 01/04/1999

The maximum penalty for this conduct is a sentence of up to six months of imprisonment. The crime charged is a Class . B misdemeanor (because the maximum authorized punishment is more than thirty days but no more than six months. Unser was convicted and was sentenced to pay a fine of $75.

This case arises from a story of survival in the wilderness under extreme conditions and involves legal issues requiring examination of some of the most fundamental concepts in criminal law. We view the case as having significance beyond the penalty actually imposed.

I

A

We will begin with an overview of the facts. Our summary in this part of the opinion is based on the testimony of the defendant. Who was the only witness at trial to have been present during the primary events. Much of this evidence was undisputed. We will note later in the opinion the critical areas which are in dispute.

On Friday. Was very experienced with snowmobiles and fairly familiar with the place he chose for them to ride.

352 OPINION/ORDER
The district courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review those agency decisions subject to judicial review.
352 OPINION/ORDER
That its methodologies for assessing species populations and range conditions were so unreliable that they made its choice of stocking levels arbitrary and capricious. The Forest Service is to develop a Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan). Which is a
352 97-1076 -- DRAKE V. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY -- 09/08/1998

Judgment and affirm.

352 OPINION/ORDER
Were unconstitutional. Arguing that the court should not have substituted its judgment for that of the legislature in rejecting a statute whose benefits exceed any perceived burden on interstate commerce. Because appellees have failed to establish that the cited provisions of § 277 are unconstitutional. Then ship the animals out of Missouri to be slaughtered because there are no major cattle slaughterhouses in the state. Within 150 miles of the Missouri border there are thirty six feedlots with the capacity of over two million cattle. There is tremendous competition among the Missouri feedlots to obtain the business of livestock producers and packers. There are four methods of purchasing cattle and hogs in Missouri:
352 96-3120 -- GOETZ V. GLICKMAN -- 07/10/1998

Is unconstitutional. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Goetz filed this class action lawsuit against the Secretary contending that his and other class members' constitutional rights are being violated because they must pay a $1.00 per head

352 OPINION/ORDER
Because we have no jurisdiction over the matter. This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. 1003 (8th Cir. 1994) (timeliness of appeal from administrative order is jurisdictional requirement that cannot be modified or waived).
352 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that USDA's determination that the petition is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA's personal privacy exemption is contrary to law. I. The assessments at issue in the requested referendum are imposed under the Pork Promotion. Which is the Board's general contractor. $36.5 million is allocated for contracts with the Council. Authority for such a referendum is found in the Act. Which provides that USDA shall conduct a referendum to determine whether pork producers and importers favor the termination or suspension of the order implementing the checkoff program
352 96-2106 -- U.S. V. JENKS -- 11/17/1997

All three ranches are
352 OPINION/ORDER
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
352 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
352 WILDERNESS SOCIETY V. ALCOCK

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Wilderness Society v. Revise land and resource management plans [ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2323.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Plaintiffs are three federally recognized Indian Tribes with reservations in sparsely populated areas of northern Wisconsin ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2308.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are known also as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3301.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3246.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The appointments were pursuant to the provisions of 5 C.F.R. § 213.3202(b). It was a condition of the appointments that 5 petitioners be students in an accredited degree producing educational institution. Petitioners qualified as students because they were enrolled in the Forest Service's Apprentice Academy. Petitioners were dismissed from the Apprentice Academy because they had failed a certain test twice. Thor's appointments should have been terminated because petitioners no longer met the regulatory requirement of being enrolled in an accredited degreeproducing educational institution. This action was taken on April 23. It was determined that these appointments were illegal 06 3246 2 because petitioners had not met the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 213.3202(b)(11)(A). A person must have completed the course requirements at an accredited school conferring a degree. This meant that the agency was not required to terminate petitioners from their positions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The first twenty years of this employment were in positions covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1988 there was a break in Ms. Her employment with the Postal Service was covered by Social Security. Nielsen was not eligible for coverage under CSRS. OPM determined that her transfer to FERS in 2000 was not in error and could not be corrected under the FERCCA. On appeal to the Board the OPM decision was sustained. DISCUSSION The Civil Service Retirement System was established in 1920 and covered most federal employees hired before 1984. It provided a retirement system that was independent of the Social Security System. The lack of Social Security benefits was to the disadvantage of employees transferring from federal service to non government employment. Which was designed to work in conjunction with Social Security. Employees that were covered under CSRS were given the opportunity to convert to FERS during two open seasons in 1987 88 and 1998. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition Is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because this court does not have jurisdiction to review Ms. Alleging that her removal was the result of discrimination based on her age (date of birth 2/19/38). This decision was upheld by the Board on appeal. Vandegrift alleges discrimination and retaliation were the basis for the Agency's removal decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1450.html">IMAZIO V. GREENHOUSES<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0374n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there is substantial evidence to support the IJ's conclusion that Kane has not Honorable Milton I. All further citations to Title 8 provisions will take the form </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0917n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Gray's arguments are without merit. By entering a horse in a show or exhibition while that horse was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0526n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 * The Plaintiffs are not for profit organizations focused on forest conservancy and preservation. 1 No. 05 1417 Northwoods Wilderness Recovery. Much of the current forestation is near uniform age: between sixty and seventy years old.2 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0897n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The boll weevil is a beetle that lives in and around cotton plants and causes them great damage. Eradication of the beetle is a goal of the federal government. Was incorporated as an Alabama non profit corporation in 1988. Southeastern's Articles of Incorporation state that the purpose of the foundation is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/95-8230.man.html">CHANDLER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chandler v. Each such candidate shall file a certificate ... stating that such candidate has been tested for illegal drugs ... and that the results of such test are negative.... Plaintiff appellants are members of the Libertarian Party seeking the offices of Lieutenant Governor. Is basically barred from holding office. Additional aspects of the drug testing scheme were outlined by the district court: testing may. The test is designed to reveal the presence or absence of the indicia of five illegal drugs. No information unrelated to drug use is contemplated by the statute. Be the basis for barring a candidate from the ballot.<p> II.<p> <p> That the tests at issue are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment seems settled. <i>See Skinner v. This test </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C04/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064580np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. The parties are familiar with the facts and proceedings. So we will only briefly revisit them here. The Appellant 2 We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). Our review of the factual findings supporting a district court's application of the Guidelines is only for clear error. A two level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is appropriate where the court finds that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061315np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. The parties are familiar with the facts. So we will only briefly revisit them here. When they were unable to repay their loans. We will refer to the Visconits in the plural. ECOA claims are subject to a two year statute of limitations. The ALJ concluded that the Viscontis' complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed before July 1. The ALJ noted that those letters did not mention the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6101574E5F1713288256DA2005AF7CE/$file/0235764.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: No less than half of the wetlands1 in the continental United States have been destroyed since 1600.2 To counter this trend. Wetlands are home to nearly 5. See also 16 U.S.C. § 3837(a) (2000) (the WRP was established </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051785np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings. We will discuss only the facts relevant to our disposition of this appeal. Ablestein was dismissed from employment as a Plant Protection and Quarantine Officer at the Newark International Airport on May 1. The MSPB appeal was dismissed in April 2002 for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the dismissal de novo. The filing of the MSPB appeal will be deemed the initial counselor contact required under § 105(a)(1). Provides that the USDA: shall extend the 45 day time limit in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when the individual shows that he or she was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them . . . or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or the Commission. 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(2). The USDA argues that the extension only pertained to the MSPB appeal. 3 This argument is unpersuasive. We will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.1 Appellant's motion for summary reversal is denied as moot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM4NDNfc28ucGRm/04-3843_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0555E2F83B8D3CA88256C5B000261BB/$file/0056446.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court for the Southern District of California agreed with BSI that the property in question was not an asset of the judgment debtor FLATOW v. Was killed in an explosion when the bus in which she was traveling collided with a van loaded with explosives. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605 statutory note.3 This provision is commonly referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4MzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2839-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court to enter a judgment vacating the Forest Service's determination. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 RONALD A. The Forest Service counters that: (i) the 2000 Transitional Rule was applicable. (ii) the rule's only requirement is use of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200517164.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the question. Are the Alabama sturgeon and the shovelnose sturgeon separate species? Which one observer has noted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514461.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The basic substantive issue in this consolidated appeal is whether a coalition of environmental groups (collectively. Ouachita) is correct that the U.S. Concluding instead that the majority of Ouachita's claims were not ripe for review. That conclusion was wrong. Since it was based primarily on a construction of the ripeness doctrine that is generally standard but does not apply in NEPA suits. Because we find no merit in the Forest Service's claims that Ouachita lacks standing and that certain claims are now moot (both of which it raised for the first time on appeal). I. BACKGROUND Forest plans are land and resource management plans that provide for multiple uses of the forest. Ouachita argues that these EISs fail to consider and are inconsistent with three earlier vegetative management plans and EISs (collectively. It perform a biological evaluation of the effects The five methods of vegetation management are: (1) prescribed fire. The VMEISs provide that: [w]hen adequate population inventory information is unavailable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B978813CF6E310F088256D5C0053CB7C/$file/0216201.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Congress' overriding purpose in enacting the Power Act was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Court hereby substitutes the following opinion in place of the opinion which was issued on March 21. The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. If the lobsters were not imported. If the lobsters were brought into the United States legally and were not criminally derived property. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when its new representations are issued only postconviction and directly contravene its original position upon which the government and our courts relied and the jury acted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when The Lacey Act prohibits the importation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B21ECA86E19B14B188256C9D000114A4/$file/0117080.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether sand and gravel are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The population of the Osceola Center was 46% black. Whereas the population of the Okeechobee Center was 92% black and 8% Hispanic. 4 2 1 BGHA. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. Of who made the annexation request or whether any meeting was ever held. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A97075E63E8725AB88257022004CEB9A/$file/0236140o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eleventh Circuit
352 OPINION/ORDER
Eleventh Circuit
352 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Loon Corp. is required to have a special use permit issued by the Forest Service.
352 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
352 WILDERNESS SOCIETY V. ALCOCK

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Wilderness Society v. Revise land and resource management plans [ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1326.html">BILL J. COPELAND, V. VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> For appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Because we conclude that the energy related components of HUD and FmHA utility reimbursements are excluded by statute from income under the Food Stamp Act. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The defendant appellees are the Secretary of USDA (Secretary) and the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Plaintiffs are a class of tenants receiving food stamps. In privately owned FmHA assisted housing.1 1The class includes [a]ll the persons in the State of Maine who will receive or who have received FmHA and/or HUD utility [reimbursements] anytime since March 1. 1990 and whose food stamp benefits were or will be 2 Plaintiffs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR> The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6CDE19A9C5A27E9788256C980079DB01/$file/0115435.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is not excludable from gross income as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6359838A8300E8B1882572F300822DAE/$file/0516975.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 03 06386 JKS *Nancy Ruthenbeck is substituted for Del A. P. 43(c)(2). ** Mike Johanns is substituted for Ann M. Chief Judge Schroeder and Judge Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. Plaintiffs Appellees' motion for clarification with regard to the applicability of the opinion to both 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) and inapplicability of the opinion to 36 C.F.R. § 215.18(b)(1) is GRANTED. Is amended and. The attached amended opinion is substituted in its place. Overview This is a government appeal from a district court judgment enjoining Forest Service regulations that govern review of decisions implementing forest plans. On the ground that the regulations were manifestly contrary to the governing statute. The environmentalist plaintiffs Earth Island Institute et al. challenge the four regulations the district court held were valid. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have established standing. 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.12(f) and 215.4(a) have actually been applied to a proposed project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/621A2DB748F2E23B88256E580072A595/$file/0135266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USFWS 3229 ORDER Defendant appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc Regarding Remedy is GRANTED. Is amended as follows: In Section IV of the en banc court's opinion. After the paragraph concluding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6158A1B5317A014888256CAD005C9B3A/$file/0117143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> EVANS 423 NMFS's specifications and management measures for 2001 on the footing that they are subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). That no such opportunity was given. The district court ruled that notice and comment was required by the Magnuson Act. We conclude that NMFS's recitation of good cause in 2001 was inadequate to excuse compliance with the APA's notice and comment requirement. As we have previously indicated. Given our determination that notice and comment was required under the APA for 2001. We do not need to decide whether it was also required under the Magnuson Act. Congress enacted the Magnuson Act as a response to overfishing and inadequate conservation measures that were threatening future commercial and recreational fishing. Among the purposes of the Magnuson Act are providing for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/597156B35555B768882571C600522C7A/$file/0516975.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellees. *Nancy Ruthenbeck is substituted for Del A. Overview This is a government appeal from a district court judgment enjoining Forest Service regulations that govern review of decisions implementing forest plans. On the ground that the regulations were manifestly contrary to the governing statute. RUTHENBECK held were valid. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have established standing. We hold that only that regulation is ripe for review. The Sierra Club (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1330.html">GOLLEHON FARMING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was <U>Alan F. . With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Robert E. We affirm.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50DC73BD72A164B588256E0B007D772A/$file/0135266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By offending its mandate to preserve the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/04-5449a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Barbara S. Pamela Coukos and Michael Foreman were on the brief of amici curiae The Impact Fund. Smith were on the brief of amici curiae National Women's Law Center and National Partnership for Women & Families in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Glen D. The Appellants' first claim hereinafter the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/05-5067a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Kenneth L. With him on the brief was Erik S. Were set by regulations promulgated by the agency charged with administering the loans. These loans are nonrecourse. The government's only remedy is to foreclose on the sugar. The CCC issued this regulation under its statutory authority to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-5086a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-5093a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200308/94-0002i.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5009a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/94-0002g.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/02-5021a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Suzette M. John Dossett were on the brief for amici curiae in support of respondents. Although this issue is both unsettled and fundamental factors that may justify interlocutory review pursuant to Rule 23(f) we nevertheless deny the petition because the critical questions required to resolve it are entirely unbriefed and because we are satisfied that the issue will not escape appel late review. Farmers believing that their applications have been denied on the basis of race can file complaints either directly with the FSA or with the Depart ment. Since </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-5335a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter E. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Bruce were on the brief for amicus curiae United States Beet Sugar Associ ation in support of appellees. We think appellants have demonstrat ed standing and because the Department did not comply with the APA or the Food Security Act. Is about evenly divided between sugar cane and sugar beet production. Appellants are self described small . Which is particularly trouble some for sugar beet farmers. A farmer's bid is his asking price for that amount of destruc tion. The price is expressed in terms of a percentage of the three year average value of the crop yield for the acreage diverted. The average bid was approximately 84 percent and resulted in the distribution of about 277. Participants were prohibited from participating in future PIK programs if they increased their acreage planted with sugar beets over 2000 levels. It is not clear what caused the increase. PIK farm ers received more sugar through the program than they would have if they had produced sugar on the diverted acres. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/01-6203.htm">01-6203 -- COFFMAN V. GLICKMAN -- 05/06/2003<BR></A><BR> Coffman alleged that he was terminated by the USDA based upon illegal discrimination related to age. Coffman was terminated from employment by the USDA for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200010/99-5305a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were David W. It also claims that the District Court erred in denying its motion to amend its complaint to include claims that the USDA's new rule both is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Consti tution's Interstate Commerce Clause. We hold that the District Court properly concluded that USDA was not required to engage in notice and comment rulemaking. I. BACKGROUND Appellee Daniel Glickman is the Secretary of the USDA. The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-3153a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Woody Bassett were on the brief. Schaffer III was convicted of attempting to influence the Secretary of Agriculture in violation of the Meat Inspection Act. Because we find that Schaffer was not diligent in his efforts to procure the evidence before his trial and that the evidence would not be likely to result in an acquittal upon retrial. I. Background The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our opinion reviewing the district court's grant of Archibald Schaffer's earlier post trial motion for a judgment of acquittal. We present here only those facts that are rele vant to this appeal. When Alphonso Michael Espy was serving as its Secretary. The Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Received federal disaster relief money until their benefits were reconsidered following an audit by the Department of Agriculture. The district court2 dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Bivens action was precluded by the existence of an elaborate review process and. That the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. I. Bivens actions are implied causes of action for damages against government officials for constitutional violations where Congress has not specifically provided for such a remedy. Bivens actions have not been allowed where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/97-5031a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David W. Michaelson was with him on the brief. Dunham were on the brief for amici curiae The Association of American Medical Colleges. With her on the brief was Valerie J. Michaelson were on the brief for the National Association for Biomedical Research as appellee in No. 97 5074. Landau was on the brief for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. There are over 240 species of non human primates. Ranging from marmosets of South America that are a foot tall and weigh less than half a pound to gorillas of western Africa standing six feet tall and weighing up to 500 pounds. It proved no simple task to design regulations to promote the psychological well being of such varied species as they are kept and handled for exhibition and research. Notice of intent to issue regulations was first published in the Federal Register in 1986. Which in substance require as follows: (1) restraints are generally prohibited subject to certain exceptions as determined by the attending veterinarian or the research proposal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/97-5009d.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David W. Michaelson was with him on the brief. Dunham were on the brief for amici curiae The Association of American Medical Colleges. With her on the brief was Valerie J. Michaelson were on the brief for the National Association for Biomedical Research as appellee in No. 97 5074. Landau was on the brief for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. There are over 240 species of non human primates. Ranging from marmosets of South America that are a foot tall and weigh less than half a pound to gorillas of western Africa standing six feet tall and weighing up to 500 pounds. It proved no simple task to design regulations to promote the psychological well being of such varied species as they are kept and handled for exhibition and research. Notice of intent to issue regulations was first published in the Federal Register in 1986. Which in substance require as follows: (1) restraints are generally prohibited subject to certain exceptions as determined by the attending veterinarian or the research proposal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-7075.htm">02-7075 -- LANDRY V. SMITH -- 02/13/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <p> Plaintiff David Wayne Landry was denied a loan from the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) because the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) characterized his site as a wetland. The district court found that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-1495a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James M. Inc. is a nonprofit organization operating in the Florida Keys. Before it was resolved. The Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service instituted a disciplinary proceeding against Sugarloaf a pro ceeding to which Marine Mammal was not a party for alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The Department's first line of defense is that we have no jurisdiction in light of Marine Mammal's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. The Department's rules provide that an ALJ's decision does not become final while an appeal of the decision is pending in the agency. That the only final orders of the Secretary </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-5354a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ugol were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Bean were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Marine Conservation. Hawkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation. Kamenar were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. III was on the brief for amicus curiae American Land Foundation. Which is located only in California. An insect that is native to the San Bernardino area of California. The habitat of which is located entirely within an eight mile radius in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. The district court held that application of section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to the Fly is a valid exercise of Congress' power pursuant to the Commerce Clause. We affirm the district court's decision to grant the government's motion for summary judgment.1 1 Summary judgment is appropriate when all of the submissions </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/981479U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court's judgment is correct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982102.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The Town of Pollocksville is located in Jones County. In 1985 the Town became concerned because raw sewage was being pumped directly into nearby Trent River and Mill Creek. The septic tanks of its residents were beginning to fail. The FmHA concluded that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore a more in depth Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(c). Rivers recommended that the Town consider land treatment a process in which treated effluent is sprayed onto fields surrounding the facility. The Town agreed that a land treatment system was the better of the two options. If a land treatment system were to malfunction. The State of North Carolina was considering more stringent standards for river discharge systems in the future. It rejected siting the facility to the north because that would have required pumping the waste over the Trent River. The Town decided against looking east since that would have required sending the waste over Mill Creek. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981802.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/962939P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The product was accompanied by brochures making various claims about the product. Included in these claims were statements that the cattle were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/95-8230.man.html">CHANDLER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chandler v. Each such candidate shall file a certificate ... stating that such candidate has been tested for illegal drugs ... and that the results of such test are negative.... Plaintiff appellants are members of the Libertarian Party seeking the offices of Lieutenant Governor. Is basically barred from holding office. Additional aspects of the drug testing scheme were outlined by the district court: testing may. The test is designed to reveal the presence or absence of the indicia of five illegal drugs. No information unrelated to drug use is contemplated by the statute. Be the basis for barring a candidate from the ballot.<p> II.<p> <p> That the tests at issue are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment seems settled. <i>See Skinner v. This test </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963995P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charles Gunn filed this action in the District Court1 to challenge the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS's2) determination that certain parts of his farmland were converted wetlands and could therefore not be farmed without his losing eligibility for certain farm benefit programs. The District Court held that the SCS's regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the pertinent statute. That the SCS's determination that the lands were wetlands was supported by substantial evidence. I. Gunn owns 160 acres of land in Iowa that he and his predecessors in interest have farmed since 1906. Before that time the acreage was wetlands and not arable. Was abolished in 1994. Its functions were transferred to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Among the exemptions to the provisions of Swampbuster is one for wetlands that had been converted to agricultural production before December 23. The SCS determines whether the land for which a farmer seeks benefits contains wetlands that have been converted for agricultural purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-3057.htm">01-3057 -- LEWIS V. GLICKMAN -- 07/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Lewis' outstanding loans were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Lewis was obligated to make an annual payment of $37. Which was denied in 1989 due to the inability of his farm operation to maintain a sufficient cashflow. Which was overturned in April 1990. That it was denying his restructuring application due to his lack of good faith and failure to provide information. That it was accelerating his debt. Lewis appealed that decision and was accorded a full administrative hearing on the lack of good faith issue. Lewis had not acted in good faith and that the restructuring was properly denied. Lewis would have otherwise received. The offset was upheld by the National Appeals Division hearing officer on February 19. The Office held there was no evidence of age discrimination. <p> Mr. The district court held they were barred by Mr. Lewis was informed of the Agency's intent to proceed against him. We are convinced the district court correctly held any discrimination claims accrued when Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-2166.htm">01-2166 -- MOONGATE WATER CO. V. BUTTERFIELD PARK MUTUAL DOMESTIC WATER ASSOCIATION - - 06/03/2002<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Butterfield Park is a non profit association incorporated in 1969 under New Mexico law. A property which was sold in 1999 to Ms. That protection was afforded by a provision of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Butterfield's notes were then transferred to the Community Property Trust No. 1987A. GMAC Financial Services (GMAC) was substituted as agent for the Trustee. 1926(b)'s monopoly protection is unavailable to Butterfield. It alleged Butterfield's FmHA indebtedness did not transfer to assignees of the notes and Butterfield was not serving Ms. Have a continuing indebtedness to the FmHA. Have provided or made available service to the disputed area. The district court concluded Butterfield is entitled to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962818.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (3) whether he presented evidence showing that he was the victim of adverse employment actions. (5) whether he presented sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant's reasons for its actions were pretextual. When the agency was disbanded. Chahil filed the first of six formal EEO complaints with the USDA's EEO office alleging that his supervisors were hostile toward him and blocked his advancement. That he was not included in a rotating supervisor program. That he was moved out of his private office and into a smokefilled secretarial bay. That he was forced to use printers on another floor. Chahil asserted that these actions were the result of unlawful 2 discrimination based on his disability. Chahil bore the burden of showing that the reason was a pretext for illegal discrimination. The district court properly found that Chahil's personal speculations standing alone were insufficient to satisfy this burden. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962542.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are turkey growers. At which the Philsons were awarded $15. Were subsidiaries of Goldsboro Milling Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-7121.htm">01-7121 -- LANDRY V. VENEMAN -- 05/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Holding that the claims were barred by the doctrine of <em>res judicata</em>. We conclude that the district court was correct. The parties to this and all of appellant's previous actions are either identical or in privity. <em>See Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Ebel</a> <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031322.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953034P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which conditions receipt *This action was originally brought against then Secretary Michael Espy in his official capacity. Glickman was appointed Secretary of Agriculture. *THE HONORABLE BRUCE M. Arguing that the NDS's decision was We affirm. Von Eye received notice that he may have violated the Swampbuster Act. Four </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011208.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GLICKMAN Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (3) whether the district court erred in holding that the Agency's proffered reason for failure to promote was not pretextual. When the agency was disbanded. Where he is presently employed. Chahil is sixty two years old. His country of national origin is India. The new equipment was ordered and installed. The system was found to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/952105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was Schutterle's third such appeal as well as his third loss. The inaccurate assessment was due to an inflated property valuation which resulted from the Modern Soil Survey's inaccurate map of his property. Produced a letter in which the SCS denied him permission to testify pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1.214 (1995).2 The agency reasoned that such testimony was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4183.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each forest plan </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2239.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is Hispanic. Was careless with expensive equipment. Plaintiff was informed that he was now required to provide a doctor's explanation for his sick leave and he (1) On January 21. Johanns is substituted for AnnVeneman as the defendant in this action. (2) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> was placed on a six month restrictive leave schedule. Plaintiff was issued a ninety day performance improvement plan (PIP). Plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing that: 1) he was engaged in protected opposition to discrimination. 2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action. It is undisputed that plaintiff's EEO complaint in May 2001 constituted protected activity that satisfies the first element of this test. Plaintiff contends that this ruling was in error. Were sufficiently severe to constitute adverse employment action. (1) Plaintiff's complaint also alleged a claim for racial discrimination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063730U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller was dismissed after corn she was charged with keeping as collateral on a Farm Service loan was used for other purposes. 092 bushels of corn that was supposed to be securing both loans had gone missing from the designated grain bins on their farm. You knew or should have known that you were responsible for the resulting lien on the aforementioned crop. The offense with which you are charged casts grave doubt on your reliability. One affidavit from Miller's husband denied Miller was part of the grain removal and disposition. Frago contacted Miller's attorney and confirmed that Miller requested a review and that she did not wish to have a hearing. Herzog reported back: As to Appellant's argument that the acts charged to her were not misconduct. Said conduct was. Was taken without the knowledge or permission of FSA. The taking of that property was prohibited by the [CCC] grain loan contracts. There is no question that the conduct charged to Appellant was correctly labeled as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1317.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Figa & Will. BACKGROUND Long Draw Reservoir is a water storage facility in the Roosevelt National Forest. It is located on La Poudre Pass Creek. The original reservoir was formed following completion of the Long Draw Dam in 1929. The reservoir was expanded. On the additional 390 acres of National Forest land that was submerged when Long Draw Reservoir was expanded. Water from La Poudre Pass Creek is vital to several threatened and endangered species. La Poudre Pass Creek between the Long Draw Dam and the confluence with the Cache La Poudre River is effectively dry during the winter months. The parties have submitted three motions for this court's consideration. 942 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting this court's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/04/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep23/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1296.html">DELTA AND PINE LAND CO. V. THE SINKERS CORP.<BR></A><BR> Delta is the owner of numerous Certificates of Plant Variety Protection ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3562F31D684CBA1A88256DC9007E1060/$file/0216037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Sierra Club is not a party to this appeal. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which states that a decision may be set aside </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2370.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Farmland Dairies. Were on brief for appellees. Inc. is a non profit trade association representing New York milk processors and distributors of fluid milk products. It is joined by five fluid milk processors and distributors that procure raw milk from dairy farms outside of New England and distribute fluid milk in New England. The Commission's primary purpose is to regulate milk prices in the signatory states. The delegation members' compensation is determined and paid by the individual states. The highest prices are charged for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30994D360D54606388256E5A00707BB1/$file/9915823.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have before us the question of whether the district court erred in ordering on remand that the Plaintiffs must apply for National Forest Service permits. I. The facts as follow were found by the district court in Adams v. Because many of the facts were set forth in Adams I. What follows is a truncated version containing the relevant facts for this appeal. Which was recorded December 4. The larger western tract is separated from the smaller eastern tract by National Forest land. Granted the United States a deed (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-7080.htm">02-7080 -- PITTSBURG COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO.7 V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-5329a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4292.opa.html">ANTENOR V. D & S FARMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Antenor v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/061150P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\6-1\06-1150 SOUTH DAKOTA V. US DEPT OF INTERIOR OPN 5.23(D).WPD<BR></A><BR> One of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1066.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> were on brief. Ferrer</U> were on brief. DuPont moved for summary judgment on the basis that the suit was barred both by judicial estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations. The latter ruling was premised on the court's conclusion that appellants had the requisite legal knowledge of their injury and its cause in 1988. O were engaged in the cultivation. Appellant Torres was the president of the Board of Directors of Agro Industrias. Was the corporation's general manager and sole shareholder.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/023259U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1760.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief. Knight LLP</U> were on brief. It is brought by a group of residents of Belmont. We affirm.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/977A3690A89BE17D8825722D007DA4DA/$file/0415788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenge the United States Department of Agriculture's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CD2C5A4AE1B6A0388256E5A00707B22/$file/0035121.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03-7016a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954292.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted the judgment after concluding that the farmworkers presented insufficient evidence that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D3D2B51595E54BC8825718B007C3BA5/$file/0416179.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Forest Guardians urges that the Forest Service was required to re consult because it failed to comply with the agreed upon criteria governing the monitoring of the grazing's impact on endangered and threatened species living in the Water Canyon Allotment of the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. The substantive provision relevant to this appeal is § 7. An agency's decision whether to take a discretionary action that may jeopardize endangered or threatened species is strictly governed by ESA mandated inter agency consultation procedures. Because the procedural requirements are designed to ensure compliance with the substantive provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061150P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-29\06-1150 SOUTH DAKOTA V. US DEPT OF INTERIOR OPN 1.24.WPD<BR></A><BR> One of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20ADFFEE69DE724C88256E1C0004F46B/$file/0216696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the subject of a criminal investigation because the government suspects that Lion falsified documents related to USDA inspections of its raisins. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND The California raisin industry is highly competitive. At the time this action was commenced. Raisin prices were at a 15year low and the success or failure of contract bids hinged on price differentials of a fraction of a cent per pound. Lion is the largest independent handler of California raisins in the state. Lion is governed by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The marketing order requires that raisin handlers have their products inspected by USDA once when they are received from producers. Again before they are sold to the consumer. 7 C.F.R. §§ 989.58 989.59. The original of the Line Check Sheet is retained by USDA and a carbonless copy is left with the handler.1 Information from the Line Check Sheets is summarized on USDA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/021827P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is black. Alleged that she was subjected to adverse employment actions and a hostile work environment because of her race. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B4485DF1F7D251288256AC40003E5EB/$file/9915654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3193.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The Trust contends that the Agency's finding that it violated its CRP contract by having uncontrolled noxious weeds on the subject property was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence. At issue in this case is the requirement that all participants subject to a CRP contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1419.html">SIEGEL OIL CO. V. RICHARDSON, BILL<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <U>Lauren R. Of counsel were <U>David . Siegel had not demonstrated entitlement to recover restitution out of a special fund set up to compensate apparent victims of regulatory violations that may have been committed by Gulf Oil Company (". The district court upheld the OHA determination on the ground that it was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis. We agree with the district court that OHA s determination was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis and that no material issues of fact were genuinely disputed. The base period for any given month during the control period was the corresponding month of 1972. <U>See</U> 10 C.F.R. § 211.02 (1978). OHA requires that all applicants for restitution demonstrate that they were customers of the firm in question and that they were injured by the violations allegedly committed by that firm. That agree to consent orders normally do not admit any wrong doing and are not parties to the distribution proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-5351a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Cooper was on the brief for amicus curiae American Kennel Club. Joseph Mendelson III was on the brief. Which is administered by the Department of Agricul ture. The Secretary defines </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC93B6FB7EF0B24688256D33005642B8/$file/0115066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. We have jurisdiction over Forest Guardians' timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After the briefs were filed. Before argument was heard. I. The Service is currently responsible for managing the 191 million acres of land in the National Forest System. The Apache Sitgreaves National Forest is managed by the Southwest Region of the Service and is located in the central eastern portion of Arizona that is bordered by New Mexico. The Service is required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-1219.htm">98-1219 -- WOLLAN V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff James A. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (when United States is a party. 245 (1992) (holding that federal appellate jurisdiction is conditioned on filing a timely notice of appeal). <p> The federal rules do not recognize a motion to reconsider. A motion filed after the ten day period is construed as a motion seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The time for filing a notice of appeal is not tolled. The fact that the district court granted plaintiff's motion for extension of time is not the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/94-3521.op2.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. The district court erred in ruling that the jury could not reasonably have found (2) plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendant's representation. We now have reviewed the court's answer. Then the motion was properly granted. If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion such that reasonable people. Then such a motion was due to be denied.<p> <p> <i>Id.</i> (quotation omitted). We must determine </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111373.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 2 * William Riccard was demoted by his employer. The result of Riccard's demotion was to lessen the amount of disability payments he received. We have before us appeals that Riccard has filed contesting orders and judgments. Is also an appellant to the extent necessary to challenge sanctions imposed against Rasch. We will take up each of them after setting out some background. 3 I. BACKGROUND Riccard began working for Prudential in 1970 as a sales representative and was eventually promoted to sales manager. He was demoted from his position as sales manager back to sales representative. He was subsequently placed on long term disability leave and received disability payments from Prudential until November 1999. We will refer to them in the order in which they were filed as Riccard I IV. That Prudential had violated their employment agreement by demoting him from sales manager to sales representative which resulted in his disability benefits being lower than they would have been had he not been demoted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-7016a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Heather M. Contending that Pakistan was required to pay it the proceeds of wheat ship ments to which plaintiff was entitled as assignee of a mari time contract. Acted as shipbroker and loaned Horsebridge the money to charter the vessels that were to transport the wheat. Pakistan was to make its charter party payments through a letter of credit drawn in favor of Ned. Before final payment was made. Was un able to serve process on Horsebridge. Pakistan opposed sum mary judgment on two grounds: (1) that by the time the final proceeds were paid. The assignment was void because the letter of credit had expired. Pakistan's obligation to pay was continuing and the letter of credit was only one means of making payment. That the district court should not have ruled against it without permitting time for further discov ery.1 We review such claims solely for abuse of discretion by the district court. We conclude that either of the two reasons given by the district court for denying further discovery was sufficient to justify its decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5231a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Cornish F. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Several cases over the last two decades have required this court to consider whether records and documents of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1034.html">FILMTEC V. HYDRANAUTICS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211817.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When they terminated his employment and that his discharge was in retaliation for his filing of a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/98-3337.htm">98-3337 -- RURAL WATER DISTRIST NO.1 V. CITY OF WILSON KANSAS -- 03/22/2001<BR></A><BR> Remand. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The City is a municipal corporation in Ellsworth County. Post Rock is a rural water district formed on March 5. They may not connect to the City water system unless Post Rock is unable to provide service or releases them from the water district. <p> To receive water service. If the engineer finds that there is sufficient capacity to serve the potential user and determines what additions will be required to the system. Purma Addition is located outside the 1979 Wilson city limits. 000. <p> Prairie Estates Addition is also located outside the 1979 Wilson city limits. There was testimony that it would take three to six days to provide water service. No houses had been built in Prairie Estates and none were planned in the immediate future. Post Rock could not state whether it would have the capacity to serve Prairie Estates in the future. <p> The Branda property was annexed into the City in 1992. Post Rock asserted it was entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-7080.htm">02-7080 -- PITTSBURG COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 7 V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 10/17/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BB4B2620E72762F888256B27005F9F56/$file/0015967.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Have disputed the rights to water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers.1 Through its enactment of Public Law 101 618. This action involves Title II of Public Law 101 618 the Truckee Carson Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-1348.htm">02-1348 -- HANNON V. CLARK -- 07/16/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <u>Procedural History</u> <p> In 1995. That area is home to a narrow land bridge across the Continental Divide which connects roadless areas north and south of Interstate 70 and is the only route for many terrestrial wildlife species to cross I 70. <p> In 1998. The lift has since been constructed and is in operation. <p> In November of 2000. The court could not determine whether that issue had been given appropriate consideration by the Forest Service and thus whether there was compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The court noted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5035a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Mark Roth. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. While the case was on remand in the district court. The question now is whether the revised model program complies with these statutes. Both statutes seek to ensure that all meat and poultry products processed for human consumption are wholesome and unadulterated. The notice said the agency was launching the Inspection Models Development Project (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410160.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from the products liability and toxic trespass claims of nine individuals who allege they were exposed to a virulent substance used as a pesticide in Florida. Because the requisite proof of causation was lacking without the expert testimony. A Mediterranean fruit fly ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-8506.man.html">AM. MFG. MUT. INS. CO. V. TISON HOG MKT. (8/3/1999, NO. 98-8506)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Plaintiff American Manufacturing Mutual Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5266a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief was John F. Gaine was on the brief for amicus curiae Man aged Funds Association. Because the regulation of their advertising practices was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511951.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Ricky Bracewell from an order of the district court excluding from the estate a payment Bracewell received under the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 for crop losses he had sustained. The appeal turns on the issue of whether a crop disaster payment is property of the debtor's estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) or (a)(6) if the losses occurred before the bankruptcy filing or conversion date but the legislation authorizing the payment came afterwards. The bankruptcy court ruled that the payments were property of the estate under § 541(a)(1) but not under (a)(6). The district court ruled that the payment was not property of the bankruptcy estate under either subsection of § 541. This is the trustee's appeal from that ruling. I. The facts have been stipulated throughout these proceedings. He was unable to repay the debts he had incurred to produce the crops. While Bracewell's bankruptcy petition was pending. The Emergency Farmer and Rancher Assistance Act of 2002 was introduced in the House of Representatives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C1AF5063B37039BE882570DC005D8537/$file/0415512.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants asserted they were eligible for a waiver of normal FOIA fees under § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). USFS reduced if disclosure is in the public interest and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. GIS is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C496E45A7A03DC6C88256D8700818140/$file/0115665.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is Pyramid Lake. The Project was intended to convert some of the country's most arid land into irrigated farmland. Which is the principal source of water for Pyramid Lake. The State Engineer relied on his earlier ruling that intrafarm transfers were exempt from forfeiture and abandonment under Nevada law. The majority of the transfer applicants involved in these three appeals (as appellees) were successful in obtaining a ruling from the State We consolidated the five different cases for oral argument: Appeal Nos. 01 15665. Isabelle Winder are the three groups of applicants who originally appealed the denial of their transfer applications. The appellants in these two appeals are also the Tribe and the United States. The appellees are successful transfer applicants. Claiming that some or all of the water rights that the applicants sought to transfer were ineligible for transfer because they had been abandoned. After the district court affirmed the State Engineer's rulings that are at issue in these appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-6127.htm">02-6127 -- GUARANTEE STATE BANK V. FARM SERVICE AGENCY -- 06/04/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 7 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE2MTVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1615_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was the executive director of Hope International. One of Hope's programs was to act as a sponsoring organization for private child care providers seeking reimbursement from the United States 1 W e outline only those facts necessary to ad dress the restitution issue. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Department of Agriculture's Child and Adult Care Food Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6170FFB6356F82088256DCE00644DD3/$file/0235512.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Okanogan National Forest was originally set aside as the Washington Forest Reserve in 1897. The permit was granted in July 1903. Which stated: It is further agreed and understood that the permission herein granted is subject to revocation by the Secretary of the Interior. Notwithstanding the period for which this agreement is approved may not have then expired. The permit was renewed with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033488p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant. The lead plaintiff is Gail Watson Chiang ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1333.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate ten acre patented mining claim known as the Annie Hayford Lode Mining Claim (Hayford). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Property taxes on the Hayford were last paid in 1937. The property was included on the 1938 delinquent tax list. Which was published for four weeks beginning in November 1938. The Hayford was offered at a December 12. Because there were no bidders. It was struck off to Pitkin County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. Which was recorded on April 11. Which was refused. Pursuant to which Pitkin County agreed to (2) Pitkin County continued to own the Hayford until 1994 when it was conveyed to the United States. No property taxes were assessed because county owned property is tax exempt. Stat. 393105. (3) A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3184.html">KENNETH D. HUFFMAN V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8196FADF07F13C288256C62007C51EA/$file/0115239.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/98-5428a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. White was on brief. Grossi were on brief. The court held that Interior should have applied the canon of construction resolving un clear language in favor of Indian claims instead of using the presumption of survey regularity.3 See id. at 9 11. Rejecting the federal appellants' contention that it was time barred by either the Quiet Title Act or the Indian Claims Commission Act. 3 The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the canon of construction that resolves ambiguity in any document related to Indian lands in favor of the Indian claim. 199 (1975) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1331.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate ten acre patented mining claim known as the Puzzler Lode Mining Claim (Puzzler). It is located in the Maroon Bells Snowmass Wilderness Area of the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Because there were no bidders. The Puzzler was struck off to Pitkin County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. A treasurer's deed for the Puzzler was issued to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The resolution recognized that the claims were located within the White River National Forest and stated that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DCD8811CDE4275E088256E5A00707CB6/$file/9915654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043467p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the BIA did not explain its rationale for denying Konan's claim that he was persecuted due to membership in a particular social group (his status as the son of a military police officer). There is. We will grant the petition for review. I. Facts Konan was born in Bouake. He is a Catholic. His father was an officer in the Gendarmerie. All of which is documented in the record. Gbagbo was then declared the winner of the election. That result was contested by followers of Alassane Dramane Ouattara. Were allied against Ouattara supporters. Local elections were held without incident. A government of national unity was formed. Bouake is the location of the N'Gattakro Gendarmerie camp where Konan lived. Guéi was killed. There were also killings or attempted killings of other political leaders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-5320a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Mark Roth. With him on the brief were David W. The question in this appeal from the judgment of the district court is whether the statutes permit federal inspec tors to step back from the processing lines and perform their inspection duties by overseeing inspections conducted by plant employees. That is. The carcass is passed and marked with the USDA legend. Or otherwise adulterated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1330.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate eight acre patented mining claim known as the Alice Lode Mining Claim (Alice). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Of which he was a director. The Alice was offered at a December 1914 tax sale. Because there were no bidders. The Alice was struck off to Pitkin County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. A copy of the notice was sent via registered mail to Mr. When there was no response. Was recorded on April 6. The resolution recognized that the claims were located within the White River National Forest and stated that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/982803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hopkins was dismissed from his position as director of the Division of Grain Inspection and Warehousing (the Division) of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (the Department) without receiving prior notice or a hearing. 1 We grant Hopkins' motion to supplement the record. 2 Hopkins sought review of his dismissal by filing an appeal with the Agriculture Personnel Review Board (APRB). The purpose of this plan and the APRB was to ensure that Division employees were employed on the basis of job qualifications rather than political affiliations. The Department responded to Hopkins' appeal with a letter explaining that the 1978 plan was void and that the APRB no longer existed. Chapter 36 is a state merit system law that was enacted by the Missouri legislature in 1979. That the 1978 plan remained applicable to those employees who were excepted from the PAB's procedures. Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal and that the proper forum for such an appeal was the APRB. Alleging that he was dismissed in violation of his due process rights and in violation of Missouri's whistleblower statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E28ADDED7F9C051388256FBE0077758F/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1329.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate six acre patented mining claim known as the Snowflake Lode Mining Claim (Snowflake). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. It was acquired by Jennie M. Property taxes were last paid on the Snowflake in 1911 by Lou D. The Snowflake was offered at a tax sale by the Pitkin County Treasurer. There were no bidders at the tax sale. The Snowflake was struck off to Pitkin County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. A copy of which was sent to Walden Sweet by registered mail. When there was no response. Which was recorded on April 18. The resolution recognized that the claims were located within the (2) Pitkin County continued to own the Snowflake until 1994 when it was conveyed to the United States. No property taxes were assessed because county owned property is tax exempt. Stat. 39 3 105. <hr> White River National Forest and stated that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1328.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate eight acre patented mining claim known as the Franklin Lode Mining Claim (Franklin). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. His interest was struck off to Pitkin County because he failed to pay the taxes. The two thirds interest in the Franklin was placed on the delinquent tax list. Because there were no bidders. It was struck off to the County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. Copies of which were sent by registered mail to Lena Guile and Mr. When there was no response. Was recorded on October 20. Which was recorded August 17. His one third interest was offered for sale in 1908 by the Pitkin County Treasurer. Because there were no bidders. The interest was struck off to Pitkin County via a treasurer's certificate of purchase. Was later conveyed to the County in 1954 pursuant to a treasurer's deed. Plaintiff admitted that his claim is based solely on the twothirds interest in the Franklin that was retained by Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983256U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 1 deprivation of constitutionally protected right was committed by person acting under color of state law). 158 (3d Cir. 1998) (finding no authority to support conclusion federal agency is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-8506.man.html">AM. MFG. MUT. INS. CO. V. TISON HOG MKT. (8/3/1999, NO. 98-8506)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Plaintiff American Manufacturing Mutual Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/97-5009c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David W. Michaelson were on the briefs for appellant National Association for Biomedical Re search in No. 97 5009. Dunham were on the brief for amici curiae The Association of American Medical Colleges. With her on the brief was Valerie J. Michaelson were on the brief for the National Association for Biomedical Research as appellee in No. 97 5074. Landau was on the brief for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. There are over 240 species of non human primates. Ranging from marmosets of South America that are a foot tall and weigh less than half a pound to gorillas of western Africa standing six feet tall and weighing up to 500 pounds. It proved no simple task to design regulations to promote the psychological well being of such varied species as they are kept and handled for exhibition and research. Notice of intent to issue regulations was first published in the Federal Register in 1986. Which in substance require as follows: (1) restraints are generally prohibited subject to certain exceptions as determined by the attending veterinarian or the research proposal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5459BCD33E1E3F588257054004A8748/$file/0435868.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NRDC further challenges the 1 Intervenors Appellees State of Alaska and Alaska Forest Association (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.pl?CASENUM=&TITLE=&puid=0&FROMDATE=10%2F20%2F2003&TODATE=10%2F26%2F2003&OPINNUM=">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <font size=+1> Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-5405a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Robin W. With her on the brief were Lois J. Erwin was on the brief for amici curiae Dale Bondurant. Featherly was on the brief for amici curiae Mary Bishop. Circuit Judge: The Alaska Legislative Council is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/98-2229.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. 489 CASES SHRIMP (9/15/1998, NO. 98-2229)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge</A>.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The question presented is whether or not the district court abused its discretion in requiring Sigma to pay the expenses incurred by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. We hold the award was proper and not an abuse of discretion.</P> <P> Sigma engaged in a scheme to bring adulterated shrimp into the United States where the shrimp were to be sold fraudulently. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was asked to come in and take appropriate action. It did and the shrimp were kept off the market. It argues that FDACS was neither a party nor an intervenor in this action and that 21 U.S.C. § 334 simply does not reach so far.</P> <P> 21 U.S.C. § 334(d)(1) provides:</P> <P> Any food. The expenses of such supervision shall be paid by the person obtaining release of the article under bond.</P> <P> </P> <P> 21 U.S.C. § 334(e) reads:</P> <P> When a decree of condemnation is entered against the article. A portion of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1454a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perla was on brief for the appellants. Were on brief for the appellee. Seek review of a Tax Court opinion holding that they were not entitled to deduct expenditures for water and soil conservation expenditures made for property located in Australia. On appeal the appellants argue that IRC s 175(c)(3)(A)(ii) requires that expenditures simply be consis tent with any state soil conservation plan regardless whether the taxpayer's property is located within the jurisdiction of the agency with whose plan its water and soil conservation expenditures are consistent. We disagree and hold that IRC s 175(c)(3)(A)(ii) requires that the plan apply to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0010p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this case are the duties of disinterest and disclosure of an examiner appointed to facilitate a reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Which was unable to meet obligations on $1.2 billion in debt and whose Nos. 02 6212/ 6213/6338/6340/ 6341/6344/6347 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro. As did the United States Trustee which is responsible for appointing bankruptcy examiners and trustees. The petition represented the largest bankruptcy case ever filed in Kentucky and at the time was one of the largest bankruptcy cases in the country. Schilling signed a document entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982990U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court. We believe the district court is correct and thus affirm without further discussion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0272p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marku was the Chief Finance Officer (also called the top economist) of the governmentowned National Government Tobacco Company of Albania (NGTCA) from 1975 until 1994. Sitting by designation. * The appen dix annexed to Pe titioner's brief in this case will be designated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0234p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sassé's claims are untimely. We will AFFIRM the decision of the ARB. 1 No. 04 3245 Sassé v. In 1983 Gregory Sassé was hired as an Assistant United States Attorney ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts that precipitated this case are not in dispute. Federal is the subrogee of Norvest L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE1BDF036C05A41B8825709F000058F1/$file/0435936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That its decision to approve the challenged timber sales was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0898n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that Southeastern and the Tennessee Foundation are arms of the federal and state governments Nos. 04 5537/5540/5573 Perry v. Are therefore entitled to sovereign immunity. Finding that Southeastern and the Tennessee Foundation were not entitled to sovereign immunity. The Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was in charge of overseeing the program. SE Boll Weevil Southeastern and the Tennessee Foundation were set up under the federal and state systems respectively to supervise the eradication of the boll weevil. The Tennessee Foundation was created. These funds are remitted to Southeastern to be used in the eradication program. Malathion is a popular insecticide and it is sprayed on cotton fields either by ground equipment or aerial spraying. The plaintiffs are no longer pursuing their Ninth Amendment claim. 3 2 Nos. 04 5537/5540/5573 Perry v. SE Boll Weevil </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF006B9841CD04FD88257137005C2896/$file/0435268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the snowmobile liability statute's gross negligence standard is unconstitutional. The answers to the certified questions will be determinative of the appeal pending in our court in this action. We have found no controlling Montana appellate decisions. That our phrasing of the questions is not intended to restrict your Court's consideration of this request. Relevant facts concerning the certified questions are stated below. Whether or not directly responsive to the questions as we have phrased them. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Brian Musselman (Musselman) was gravely injured in a snowmobile accident on a National Forest trail. Alleging that the United States Forest Service negligently failed to correct or warn of a dangerous condition on the Big Sky snowmobile trail where Musselman was injured. Default was taken against Johnson. Kalahar settled with plaintiffs and was dismissed before trial. The opinion of the district court is reported at 311 F. Which held that where two tortfeasors are each negligent but it cannot be determined whose negligence was the actual cause of the injuries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0227n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A bench trial was conducted. Krause testified that Check Mart was permanently disqualified from the program as a result of an investigation. Which was carried out by the USDA Office of Inspector General and the Akron Police Department. That determined that food stamp benefits were being redeemed for cash and non food items at Check Mart. Krause also testified that the store was disqualified based on an analysis of the store's electronic benefit transfer ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. His former (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Alleging that his employment was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for his prior Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity. His employment was terminated effective August 17. Argues that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his prior EEO activity. It is undisputed that Mr. Schnelle's filing the EEO complaints is protected activity and that his termination is adverse employment action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0426n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred in denying plaintiff's motion. The judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Order dated May 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0715n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the Immigration Judge's determination that the Petitioner was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. Facts The following facts were alleged by the Petitioner in his request for asylum. Petitioner Nather Habeb Shaba Tawfek Al Shabee is a citizen and national of Iraq. AlShabee and his family are Chaldean Christians. Which are ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq. His father and all of his uncles were members in the Assyrian Democratic Movement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-5150a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Burka was a pro se attorney litigant and there fore was not eligible for attorney's fees under FOIA. The district court held that the informa tion sought by Burka was exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 5 and therefore granted HHS's motion for summary judgment. The case was remanded to the district court to consider the request. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Pro Se Attorneys Are Not Entitled to Attorney's Fees Under the Fee Shifting Provisions of FOIA Burka is seeking an award of attorney's fees for his work in this case. HHS responds that Burka is not eligible for an award because the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Kay v. Whether or not they are attorneys. A litigant must first establish eligibility by showing that the lawsuit was reasonably necessary and the litigation substantially caused the requested records to be released. A litigant must show that it is entitled to fees under four criteria that the court weighs in determining whether attorney's fees are appropriate: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3372.html">PREWITT V. MSPB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/982754P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The South Fork of the Elkhorn river was straightened to improve drainage. The ditch was dredged in 1951 to clean out obstructions and silting which had occurred through the passage of time and caused water to backup. The meadow is drained by the ditch which runs along the south side of the Barthels' property. The Liermanns' land is directly downstream from the Barthels' tract. The culvert was lowered by approximately eighteen inches. The administrative record contains several adequate representations and other supporting photographs. 2 1 dredge the ditch on the Liermanns' property or in the alternative have the Liermanns clean that portion pursuant to their state law obligations. A mandatory injunction was issued requiring the Liermanns to clean out the portion of the ditch on their property </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022366P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was added to the South Dakota Constitution as the result of a 1998 referendum. I. Amendment E was codified as four sections of Article XVII of the South Dakota Constitution. Five of which are relevant to the issues raised on appeal. 6 The first of these relevant exemptions is for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4292.opa.html">ANTENOR V. D & S FARMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Antenor v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=1.2#1.2">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/054029P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district Mike Johanns is automatically substituted for his predecessor. Lisa Clark was hired in August 1999 as a temporary. Her appointment was limited to one year and 1. Her work hours were to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/974157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was arbitrary. Is the president and owner of Grand Laboratories. Serial 45 016 was then placed in 3. Initial testing showed that serial 45 016 was contaminated. Although the alleged cost of making the serial was $300. It was scheduled to be destroyed. An employee of Grand Labs contacted the USDA to inform them that a contaminated product was missing. Which by that time was located in a van in the parking lot. Pankratz was liable for shipping a contaminated biological product in violation of the VSTA. That Grand Labs was not. DISCUSSION The parties have raised three primary issues on appeal: (1) the liability of Grand Labs for Dr. The United States contends that this is error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a party defendant. When a Tennessee municipality that owns and operates its own electric system annexes territory in which an electric cooperative is providing electric services to customers. RUS was later added as a defendant. Cookeville and UCEMC disagreed on the cost of reintegration Cookeville argued that the cost was approximately $127. 000 whereas UCEMC argued that the cost was $5.825 million. While that appeal was pending. Now the propriety of both the damage award and the injunction are before this court. Cookeville also challenges the district court's jurisdiction over the entire case and the district court's jurisdiction to enter the injunction while the first appeal was pending. The district court properly exercised jurisdiction because a federal agency was a party. The district court order requiring Cookeville to pay reintegration costs of $5.825 million was legally proper and not clearly erroneous. RUS is a federal agency. Courts have also required as necessary for removal under this statute that the defendant assert a colorable federal defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-8016.htm">00-8016 -- WYOMING TIMBER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 03/20/2001<BR></A><BR> After appellate briefs were filed. The suspension was to become effective March 1. Whichever is first. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0203n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4607.opa.html">WORLDWIDE PRIMATES, INC. V. MCGREAL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Worldwide Primates. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1993).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992096.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Certified the lagoon after it was built. The discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity provides that the United States is not liable for any claim </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/982019P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Megan's doctor determined Megan is allergic to peanuts and peanut derivatives. We conclude the record presents no genuine issue of material fact and Baptist is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Land contends the district court committed error in deciding Megan was not disabled under the ADA. Land claims Megan is disabled under any of these definitions. Land claims Megan's allergy is a physical impairment that substantially limits her major life activities of eating and breathing. A physical impairment is defined as a physiological disorder affecting body systems such as digestion and respiration. We also agree that eating and breathing are major life activities within the contemplation of the ADA. See id. § 36.104(2) (definition of disability) (major life activities are fundamental functions such as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=7.6#7.6">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/971902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Federal Torts Claims Act case based on negligent inspection of a grain warehouse is before us for the second time. We ruled that Appley Brothers' claim was based on the U.S.D.A.'s breach of a mandatory duty. Therefore jurisdiction of the suit was not barred by the discretionary function exception to the F.T.C.A. Again arguing that the suit was barred by the discretionary function exception. That the mandatory duty on which we based our ruling in Appley Brothers I was not applicable. The government argues the court erred in concluding that the discretionary function The appellees are farmers. We will refer to them collectively as Appley Brothers. 2 1 exception did not apply and in determining that U.S.D.A. owed Appley Brothers a duty of care based on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-16206.man.html">MONZON V. UNITED STATES (6/5/2001, NO. 00-16206)<BR></A><BR> Adjacent to the beach area is the Fort Matanzas National Monument. Which is controlled by the National Park Service. Sometime that afternoon one of Cirelda's daughters was caught in a rip current. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1464.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. We affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade denying Yancheng an award of attorney fees because even though we find that the government was correctly held in contempt. I The United States Department of Commerce ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/981298U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court's judgment is correct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-3242.htm">01-3242 -- BULLINGTON V. IBP INC. -- 10/31/2002<BR></A><BR> He was negligently injured by an employee of IBP (Welner Lopez). Who was working within the scope of his employment with IBP and. 000.00 and such further relief as was just and equitable. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3276.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Barnett was a Food Safety inspector. Barnett was removed from her position for allegedly failing to report for duty as scheduled. The agreement provided that: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3320.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Hawkes is employed as a research chemist for the Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2209_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government determined that Alhalabi was illegally paying his customers cash for their benefits in an amount well below their face value. He was sentenced to fortyone months' imprisonment. During which they learn that they are forbidden from trading food stamps for cash. The application further stated that the store was stocked with household supplies and a range of foods including breads. He estimated that Holyland would have annual gross sales of $240. Holyland was reauthorized in December 1996. Replacing the existing regime in which paper food stamp coupons were used to obtain food. Illinois adopted an electronic system in which each person eligible for food stamp benefits had an individual account to which benefits were added once a month. Which was named the LINK system. Which was swiped at a point of sale device (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5063.html">SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <u>John C. Odd numbered sections of land on either side of the right of way.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052566P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that its decisions were reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The appellants essentially ration the supply of corn available for the geese to eat because the geese will not venture into the standing corn. Planting and harvesting methods are permissible under FSW regulations as long as they are considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/053417P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the motions were denied. Claiming that his counsel was ineffective. I. BACKGROUND Rice is a farmer in Greene County. FSA employees testified that FSA would not have closed the loan had it known that Rice had liquidated his soybeans before closing. 000 loan were also pledged to FSA as security for the loan and placed in a supervised account from which funds could be withdrawn only with written FSA approval. His motion was denied. Claiming that the jury's verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rice contends that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence. (iii) his counsel was ineffective. We will overturn a jury verdict based upon insufficiency of the evidence only if it is clear that no reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A verdict will be overturned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3098_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A hiring process was put in place. Because at about the same time that a job was being created for her. The result was that someone else got the newly created. She was also responsible for maintaining the department's Web site. It was in September 2000 that Ashman talked with her supervisors defendants Richard Barrows. The student services coordinator of the Department of Academic Student Affairs for CALS claiming that her job was undervalued and undercompensated. She was an LTE for 14 years. She estimated that 50 percent of her time was with the degree reporting system and 50 percent with webmaster duties. The whole point of the recruitment process was to create a permanent position which would reflect Ashman's job duties and then to give her the job. She acknowledges that this purpose may have been a questionable practice under the state civil service rules. Ashman's No. 05 3098 3 position was reclassified to Information Services (IS) Resources Technician and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022633U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Loken. 1 moratorium regulations in violation of federal law and was denied her right of redemption under state law. Which was cancelled on May 25. Her request was denied. After the moratorium was denied. Which was resisted. The property was sold to a third party at a United States Marshal's sale. Once foreclosure procedures were begun. Larson's appeal is moot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3361_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LaGrou was convicted of three felony counts: the knowing improper storage of poultry products. LaGrou was sentenced to a five year term of probation. I. Background The conditions at LaGrou's cold storage warehouse at 2101 Pershing Road in Chicago were enough to turn even the most enthusiastic meat loving carnivore into a vegetarian. The Pershing Road warehouse was a cold storage facility that stored raw. The record is unclear as to how long the rodent problems existed. It is clear that LaGrou was aware of the problem in 1999. Smith (a codefendant who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges) was hired as the manager of the Pershing Road warehouse. In 2001 LaGrou employees were catching more rats and finding more rodent droppings. Rodent damaged product was coming from all over the warehouse. LaGrou did not conduct any tests to make sure that other boxes that appeared okay were not similarly contaminated by rodents. To report back about the number of rats they were removing from traps each day. Stewart did not give Smith authorization to implement these recommendations because he concluded that the project was too expensive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/975023.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Rainbow Family is a group that periodically gathers in natural surroundings. Officer Stribling then told Pike that it appeared that the 75 person threshold had been exceeded and if that was so. A permit was necessary. The officers talked with the defendants regarding the need to apply for a permit and expressly told them that the number of group members counted was 79. So a permit was required. Was admitted into evidence at trial. That he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971979U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. 1 Smith was employed as a Soil Scientist for the Soil Conversation Service. A 1992 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-1181.htm">98-1181 -- CHESSIN V. KEYSTONE RESORT MANAGEMENT INC. -- 07/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime pay at one and a half times the rate at which they were regularly employed. (2) Arapahoe Basin is separate from Keystone for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5097.html">SEABOARD LUMBER COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3468.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Winn was hired in October 2000 by the Department of Agriculture as an agricultural technician at the GS 5 level. Winn was accepted for the officer position and. Was promoted to the GS 7 level. He was unable to attend his training class until after the probationary period had already ended. Winn was unable to achieve a passing grade of eighty percent at officer training. Arguing that his resignation was involuntary because he had been coerced into resigning. The AJ noted Winn's acknowledgement that the agency was firing him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5067.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. The appeal of the court's denial of the motion to transfer is dismissed. Background Appellants are Texas. MPCI is issued by private insurers and reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3562_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Most of these unfortunates have a mental age of less than 18 months and cannot walk or talk or perform even the simplest daily living task without assistance. Or experience required for the position was a bachelor's degree in any field. Section 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) of Title 8 forbids an alien's entering the United States </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/97-2618.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972271.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972032.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4082.htm">01-4082 -- CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR CANYONS V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether the Forest Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both of these transactions occurred while Snowbird was undertaking operations to improve its resort capacity. <p> SOC alleges that the Forest Service's handling of these transactions was arbitrary and capricious in several respects. All parties agree that Snowbird is a ski resort of some significance. The resort itself is comprised of 881 acres of private land (called the Mineral Basin) and 1. Snowbird is required to submit periodically a master development plan outlining its long range plans for the resort and the public lands it utilizes. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-1197.htm">99-1197 -- SHOOTING STAR RANCH LLC V. U.S. -- 10/17/2000<BR></A><BR> Holding it had failed to establish that it met the financial requirements of the EAJA and thus was not a party eligible for an award of costs and fees. At the time the civil action was filed. Unverified letter from its certified public accountant stating that plaintiff's net worth was between $1. The government challenged this assertion as inadequate to establish plaintiff's net worth at the time the action was filed. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a reply. Did not bolster the mere letter from plaintiff's accountant on the issue of net worth.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5035a.html">AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Wagner argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971604.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971558.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Ibay asserts the court erred by finding it failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that it was entitled to a civil penalty in lieu of disqualification from participation in the food stamp program and by not conducting a de novo trial on the merits. Ibay's permanent disqualification was affirmed. The court found the evidence insufficient to withstand summary judgment. 2 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-2211.htm">98-2211 -- FEDERAL LANDS LEGAL CONSORTIUM V. U.S. -- 10/28/1999<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031520P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the strict liability award was not permissible under Minnesota common law. That the MERA claim is moot because Viacom has entered an administrative consent order concerning the contaminated property. That the attorneys' fee award was excessive. That the prejudgment interest was excessive because Viacom had offered to settle the case. A portion of Westinghouse's business there was the repair of transformers that were insulated with Inerteen. Chlorobenzenes were used as a solvent to thin the PCBs down to a usable consistency. It was recognized that PCBs were potential carcinogens and that they were accumulating. PCBs and chlorobenzenes are classified as hazardous substances under MERLA and CERCLA. Sites contaminated with hazardous substances are subject to remediation under federal and state law. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether PCBs were leaking from those sites and migrating off Westinghouse property. Whether the PCBs were likely to be detected by others and traced back to Westinghouse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5231a.html">TAX ANALYSTS V. IRS<BR></A><BR> Dobrovir argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961448P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the formula used to determine this monetary penalty is arbitrary and capricious. The legislative history clarified that innocent store owners are liable. Including store personnel and owners that are culpable or negligent with respect to trafficking offenses. . . . We can be assured that the punishment will more closely fit the crime. It is undisputed that Corder timely requested and met the criteria for the alternative monetary sanction. She submitted substantial evidence that she was neither aware of nor benefitted from the violations. Concluding that the penalty was computed in accordance with the formula for first offenders set forth in 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(j)(1) (3). 000 penalty at issue is a quasi criminal sanction. The penalty is Congress has specified the factors that are relevant in imposing criminal fines. The burden a fine will impose on defendant and any dependents. Who was not sanctioned. Congress generally directed FCS to exercise discretion so that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60830.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Wheeler was sentenced to 18 months Lawyer Wheeler. Jr. was sentenced Finding no imprisonment and fined $20. Was employed by CMC Farms and also rented and farmed his own tract of land in Sunflower County. Cotton must have been completely planted by May 25. Ricks noted that the planting date for CMC Farms was May 25. Wheeler assured Ricks that the planting date for the irrigated acres was the same as that for the non irrigated acres. Was not asked about his final planting date. Muzzi noted on the application that Lawyer Wheeler's planting date was May 26. Both Harold Wheeler's and Lawyer Wheeler's disaster applications were held up for investigation by the Office of the Inspector General. Harold and Lawyer Wheeler were indicted on six counts by a federal grand jury. The trial was originally scheduled to begin on November 13. The trial was continued several times on motions from the defendants 4 and finally began on May 20. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961617U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants' motion to supplement the record is denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-2166.htm">99-2166 -- U.S. V. MCCALL -- 12/15/2000<BR></A><BR> Senior District Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961468U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that as the evidence was equally balanced Haynes had failed to carry this burden. Decisions. we have recognized that section In agreement with the Fifth Circuit. 286 (8th Cir. 1994) The Fifth ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bliek and Eberline were issued more food stamps than they were entitled to receive under the Act. discovering this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief was Ronald M. (Pacific Coast) are not affiliated entities under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(E). The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3189.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Coleman was removed from her position as a Program Analyst in the Office of Procurement and Property Management of the Department of Agriculture after her position was reclassified as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1476.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The federal Food Stamp Act prohibited a state from collecting a food stamp overissuance that was due to its own administrative error ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2074.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judith Volovsek claims that she should have been promoted in 1993 but was not because she is a woman. The ongoing failure of Volovsek to secure a promotion over the following five years and her unhappiness with how she was being trained and supervised led to two more administrative complaints and. The remaining claims were properly dismissed on summary judgment. She was responsible for inspection. She claims that she was required to move 25 miles to live within her work territory while two of her male colleagues. Were not required to move. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60484.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Deaton argues that he is entitled to default judgment. That the district court judge should have recused himself. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30961.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each of the six joint venturers was eligible to receive 1997 program payments authorized by the Agricultural Market Transaction Act (AMTA). The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is ultimately responsible for AMTA payment determinations.2 The case was submitted on a stipulated transcript of agency proceedings and cross motions for summary judgment. Concluding that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's decision that Plaintiffs were entitled to only one AMTA payment in 1997. I. AMTA payments are limited to $40. A joint venture is deemed to be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3844.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cold war was over but the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2687.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background No. 03 2687 Myron Wallace was not a very good business person. Wallace was contacted by the USPIS. He met with an inspector at the USPIS offices in May 2002 where he was told that his behavior was unlawful and arrangements were made to settle Wallace's debts to the company from which he purchased the equipment. Which was basically a promise by Wallace that he would not engage in similar fraudulent behavior in the future.1 This promise did not improve Wallace's behavior. . . . have been informed . . . [that] failing to provide good[s]. Practice or conduct in which I may have been involved. Contending that the Statement he made to the USPIS was too informal to fall under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(7)(C). The question is whether Wallace's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5351a.html">DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Cooper was on the brief for amicus curiae American Kennel Club. Argued the cause for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Joseph Mendelson III was on the brief. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>     </span>Before:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Randolph and Rogers. Which is administered by the Department of Agricul ture. Any outlet where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>9 C.F.R. s 1.1.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The effect of this regulation is to exempt breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span> The issue is whether the regulation is valid. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>     </span>Doris Day Animal League. 'Retail pet store' means any retail outlet where animals are sold only as pets at retail.". In 7 U.S.C. s 2132(f) and the licensing exemption of s 2133. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>     </span>There is no need to repeat the standards for reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute it alone administers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>See Envirocare of Utah. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7016a.html">NED CHARTERING & TRADING V. PAKISTAN<BR></A><BR> Tschirhart argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-7069.htm">97-7069 -- GIVENS V. GLICKMAN -- 02/09/1998<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Appellants Phil Givens. 877 (10th Cir. 1995). <p> At the heart of the dispute between the parties on appeal is the following legal question: is a civil rights complaint against a government official under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033253P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massey was removed for misconduct from her position as a Program Technician (PT) by the Jackson County (Arkansas) Executive Director of the United States Department of Agriculture and its Farm Service Agency (FSA. Claiming the decision to terminate her was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Was not based on substantial evidence. Factual Background Massey was employed for fourteen years as a PT in the Jackson County FSA Office in Newport. She was in charge of reconstitutions3 and compliance programs. A county FSA office is run by a County Executive Director (CED). The CED of the Jackson County FSA office was Floyd Campbell. Disciplinary decisions concerning county employees are made by the STC. The State Executive Director is in charge of overall program implementation and direction. There is a District Director for each district who is responsible for the oversight of several county offices. Gary Roger Davis was the District Director overseeing Jackson County. Farm reconstitutions are authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 1379 and are permitted when ownership of a farm changes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-3002.htm">97-3002 -- U.S. V. AILSWORTH -- 03/10/1998<BR></A><BR> Ailsworth was indicted in a second superseding indictment on forty two counts relating to the possession and distribution of cocaine base or crack cocaine. Five counts pertaining to Defendant were dismissed and Defendant's six codefendants entered guilty pleas. The jury checked the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011871.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the parties' briefs. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-1373.htm">97-1373 -- HIGH COUNTRY CITIZENS' ALLIANCE V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 02/07/2000<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the granting of the special use permit was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor contrary to applicable law. The unplowed section of the road was used for cross country skiing and snowmobiling. Weighing against these critical public concerns is only one value. It is not the responsibility of the government to maximize profit opportunities for individuals. Your job is to protect the public interest. The Commissioners asserted that the requested snowplowing was inconsistent with a resolution that the Board had passed in December 1996. Approved the construction of a single family residence that was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3117.htm">97-3117 -- U.S. V. GIGOT -- 05/21/1998<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> Gina Gigot was convicted on December 18. That due to this failure her plea was involuntary and therefore invalid. Gigot's plea are essentially uncontroverted.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-2258.htm">96-2258 -- MANNING V. U.S. -- 06/17/1998<BR></A><BR> Must do so by first obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause or by complying with the guidelines for administrative and regulatory searches . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/99-8089.htm">99-8089 -- STATE OF WYOMING V. U.S. -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-6035.htm">01-6035 -- EARLY V. THOMPSON -- 11/15/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Susan E. We have determined that the district court's order should be affirmed. <p> The judgment of the United States District Court for the <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/94-3521.op2.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. The district court erred in ruling that the jury could not reasonably have found (2) plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendant's representation. We now have reviewed the court's answer. Then the motion was properly granted. If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion such that reasonable people. Then such a motion was due to be denied.<p> <p> <i>Id.</i> (quotation omitted). We must determine </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/992138P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. and several affiliated individuals (collectively Tyson) alleging that Tyson was able to exempt the poultry industry from strict regulations by providing illegal payments to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials. Defendant Tyson is a poultry processor. The processed poultry ultimately is sold to consumers. Were less strict. The cattle producers claim that a series of illegal payments were made to USDA officials. Which have been the subject of other judicial proceedings. Is not at issue in this appeal. Tyson was able to win favor with the USDA and thereby both delay and water down the zero tolerance regulations that apply to poultry. The cattle producers do not allege that the zero tolerance beef regulations were a result of Tyson's improper activity. Rather allege that the regulatory burden on Tyson (and other poultry processors) was reduced by Tyson's alleged favors to Espy relative to what the burden would have been otherwise. The alleged injuries to the cattle producers are lost cattle sales and lower prices for their cattle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001488.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a complaint alleging that Esfand Baragosh was a controlling person of Noble Wealth Data Information Services and several related companies (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/953207U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/001721U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All but two of Snyder's claims were precluded by a settlement agreement with his former employer. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) (2000) (knowing and voluntary settlement agreements are binding on both parties). 451 (8th Cir. 1998) (timely filing of discrimination complaint is condition precedent to Title VII suit. Equitable tolling is premised on employee's excusable neglect). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/002232U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Whether there is lack of rational connection between facts found and decision made). We have considered Prokop's due process arguments and conclude that they fail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking damages and declaratory relief for the Insurers' alleged breach of insurance policies under which THAN is insured. I. BACKGROUND THAN is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with <hr> its principal place of business in Lenexa. Kansas.(1) THAN is a subsidiary of Philips Electronics North America Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/011163U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mages were convicted in the District Court. Each of the defendants was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty three months. (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the convictions. (3) the District Court abused its discretion in ruling that an exculpatory writing signed by one Alfons Ebbers was inadmissible. (4) the reference in the judgments of conviction to a superseding indictment on which defendants never were arraigned or tried was not harmless error. The government's evidence was extensive and entirely sufficient to show the fraud practiced by the Mageses upon their bankruptcy creditors and the Department of Agriculture. The claim of prosecutorial misconduct was rejected by the District Court when it denied defendants' motion for a mistrial. We have conducted our own review of the prosecutor's conduct and agree with the experienced and able trial court that. Defendants' due process right to a fair trial was not violated. Who had died and therefore was unavailable to testify. The court's exclusion of the proffered evidence was not an abuse of its broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/041918P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because a Bivens remedy is not available to Nebraska Beef. It is from the denial of that motion that the Inspectors filed this interlocutory appeal. Holding that when an interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity is properly before us. We observed that the property interest question was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5117.html">INTERNATIONAL AIR RESPONSE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-3051.htm">98-3051 -- U.S. V. INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE CO. -- 12/23/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellants appeal from the district court's order granting appellee summary judgment on its indemnification claims. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> Fed. In addition to the costs and attorneys' fees it had incurred. <p> The indemnification agreement authorized appellee <p> to charge for any and all disbursements made by it in good faith in and about the matters herein contemplated by this [Indemnity] Agreement under the belief that it is or was liable for the sums and amounts so disbursed. Or that it was necessary or expedient to make such disbursements. Appellants argue that appellee's settlement of the government's claim was not undertaken in good faith. Contending appellee should have. Have failed to establish any genuinely disputed issues of material fact tending to support these alleged defenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6218.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) terminated Appellant's employment in May 1997 after two board certified psychologists determined that he suffered from a delusional disorder and that returning him to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Finding that the matters presented were alleged and adjudicated in Coffman v. Claim preclusion prevents parties from re litigating issues that were or could have been raised in an action that has received a final judgment on the merits. The court found that complaints in both actions were extremely similar. Also considered whether all potential claims alleged in <hr> this complaint could have been alleged in the earlier action and concluded: Applying the general rule that all claims arising from the same employment relationship constitute the same transaction or series of transactions for claim preclusion purposes. Those claims could have been alleged in the 1999 action because they are predicated upon plaintiff's employment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042437P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The following facts are undisputed.3 Delbert and Donald Siebrasse are the sons of Henry Siebrasse. Henry was a farmer in Potter County. The form remained on file with the Potter County ASCS office and was used by Donald to manage his father's affairs with the USDA until Henry died. The USDA was never notified of the 1991 durable power of attorney. South Dakota Local Rule 56.1 required USDA to file a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts with its motion for summary judgment and required Delbert to controvert any material facts he believed were contested. Delbert contends Henry was incompetent by 1996 and unable to manage his affairs. Concluded Henry was not declared incompetent until August 13. Delbert contends Donald's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/012059P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jacob Mua is an African American woman who worked from September 1993 until 1995 as a Technology Transfer Specialist at the Lincoln. Which is part of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service. Jacob Mua requested and was granted a detail to the Federal Building in Lincoln because of alleged racial discrimination at the Agroforestry Center. Klopfenstein was a GS 12 Research Plant Pathologist with the Agroforestry Center from February 25. When he was detailed to a Moscow. Kim was a college graduate research student at the Agroforestry Center during all times relevant to the law suit. Ceased her volunteer services at the Center when Klopfenstein was sent to Idaho. Jacob Mua alleges that throughout her employment at the Agroforestry Center she was subjected to her colleagues' racist comments. She was not given the technical support she needed to perform the duties of her job. She was assigned data entry projects commensurate with the skills of an intern. Bratton claims he was not aware of any such discrimination until Jacob Mua filed an employment discrimination complaint with the EEOC in May 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3073.html">GIBSON V. DEPT. OF VA.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/013052P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These silos were to house grain for a period of thirty to forty five days before it was shipped from the port. Despite assurances from Chief that the collapses were not due to design defects. In which Chief guaranteed that the components were free from defects in the composition of material. The warranty stated that the sole and exclusive remedies available in the case of problems with the silos were repair or replacement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1484.html">HUAIYIN FOREIGN TRADE CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>John C. For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Senior Trial Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Arthur D. ) determined that a foreign producer of freshwater crawfish tail meat was subject to a dumping margin applicable to all similar producers from the People's Republic of China (". Alleging that freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC was sold in the United States at less than fair value.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China. The Department adopted in this proceeding a presumption that the PRC was a nonmarket economy (". Huaiyin 5 indicated that it was applying for a separate company specific margin.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> 62 Fed. 348.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Huaiyin 5 was among the companies able to show an absence of state control and thus received a company specific 91.5 percent <u>ad valorem</u> duty margin.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Id.</u> at 41. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2181.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal obligation at issue in this case is encompassed within 7(a)(2) of the ESA. That section requires an acting agency (allegedly the Forest Service) to consult with FWS to ensure the former's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063889P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The matter was fully briefed. He was told by the seller that it did not contain any wetlands. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SSC alleges that the Decision was issued in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/022370P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Propane is a fossil fuel by product generated during the processing of natural gas and the refining of petroleum. Although propane is a versatile fuel with many uses. Its primary use is as a home heating fuel in rural areas. The propane is unloaded into the retailers' tanker trucks and delivered to their storage tanks. The demand for propane is. The supply of propane available through the pipelines is often insufficient to meet the increased demand. The amended statute does not obligate retailers to keep an actual propane reserve and there is no requirement that the retailer actually use the tank. R & M is an Illinois corporation engaged in the retail sale of propane with its principal place of business in Columbia. Which is near the Missouri border. They transport it to Columbia where it is stored in one of two 30. When a Missouri order is placed. Will drive a bobtail truck from Hillsboro to Columbia. R & M is able to serve only customers located within a fifty miles radius of its storage facility in Columbia. 3 II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-8009.htm">02-8009 -- WYOMING SAWMILLS INCORPORATED V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 09/20/2004<BR></A><BR> Named as defendants in the complaint were the Forest Service. The Secretary of Agriculture (who is the cabinet officer with authority over the Forest Service). All of whom will be referred to herein as the Forest Service or just the Service. The Medicine Wheel Coalition on Sacred Sites of North America was permitted to intervene in the district court and is aligned with the Service as an appellee in this court. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> The Medicine Wheel National Historic Landmark was created in 1969 to preserve the Medicine Wheel. A prehistoric stone circle about 80 feet in diameter that was constructed by the aboriginal peoples of North America. Although the age of the structure is unknown. Other artifacts and traces of human habitation are found in the vicinity. A number of Native American tribes consider the Wheel to be sacred. <p> The Medicine Wheel is located on Medicine Mountain in the Bighorn National Forest in north central Wyoming. Approximately 200 acres in the Bighorn National Forest were set aside for the preservation of the Wheel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1717p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> William Farrell was convicted under the statute for attempting to dissuade a coconspirator from providing information to investigators of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) about Farrell's involvement in a conspiracy to commit the federal offense of selling adulterated meat. Farrell appeals his conviction on the ground that the conduct for which he was convicted did not constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-16206.man.html">MONZON V. UNITED STATES (6/5/2001, NO. 00-16206)<BR></A><BR> Adjacent to the beach area is the Fort Matanzas National Monument. Which is controlled by the National Park Service. Sometime that afternoon one of Cirelda's daughters was caught in a rip current. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012210.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether the dormant Commerce Clause allows a state to impose wholesale price floors that shield in state businesses from more efficient out of state competitors. Which are designed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0897p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CA5CB31DC02140088256B7900607D29/$file/0015967.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 1. The Truckee River. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1313p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the decision of the Secretary. Federal grants are issued to the states to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congregation Kol Ami (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/004348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment of civil forfeiture for funds from a bank account owned by Kim's Wholesale Distributors. The complaint claimed that the funds were subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. Proof supporting the forfeiture was obtained from business records seized from Kim's pursuant to a warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge in connection with a wide scale investigation of illegal trafficking in food stamps. Final judgment was entered against Kim's in the amount of $92. Chinese take out restaurants were buying food stamps from low income food stamp recipients for seventy cents on the dollar. It was alleged that the restaurants were then reselling the food stamps to a partnership (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/033488p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant. The lead plaintiff is Gail Watson Chiang ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/599BC82D47F2F68788256F1D0057798A/$file/0316535.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The tobacco companies argue that this is a case of compelled subsidization of speech prohibited by the First Amendment. California counters that the advertisements are government speech entirely immune from First Amendment attack. The tobacco companies concede that (1) the imposition of the tax itself is not unconstitutional and (2) the message produced by the government's advertisements creates no First Amendment problem apart from its method of funding. The revenue generated by the surtax is placed in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A6E937CFBE2A7268825702D0055A144/$file/0335337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the petitioners were entitled to relief. I This appeal is the latest chapter in a series of cases concerning a program created by Congress for the purpose of supplying substance abuse treatment to prisoners. The Bureau defined prisoners who had not been convicted of a nonviolent offense and thus were ineligible for early release as those prisoners who were currently incarcerated for committing a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (1995). Thus exclude from eligibility for the early release incentive those prisoners who were incarcerated for such offenses. Which is the subject of this litigation. The commentary accompanying the 1997 interim regulation noted that the Bureau was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2011.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The plaintiffs (appellants here) are 108 persons who own a total of 67 residential properties in Salinas. These homes are situated in two housing developments that have undergone repeated flooding. Such an order is appropriate only when the facts alleged in the complaint. The principal difficulty is that the government sited the housing developments along the Nigua River basin. That area has endured flooding both before and after the developments were built. These conditions have taken their toll: the plaintiffs say that their dwellings are now in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5405a.html">AK LEGIS CNCL V. BABBITT BRUCE<BR></A><BR> With him <p> on the briefs was <i>Robin W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Lois J. Erwin</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> Dale <p> Bondurant. Featherly</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Mary Bishop. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The Alaska Legislative Council is <p> a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2441.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. DeJuneas</SPAN> was on brief. The relevant facts are as follows.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/991702.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that his guilty plea was not knowing. We conclude that his plea was knowing. We conclude that the district court did err in not considering Mustafa's ability to pay the restitution that was imposed in the amount of $732. We will remand for resentencing proceedings consistent with this opinion. Each redemption certificate purported to verify that the food stamps Mustafa was depositing were obtained in a manner that was consistent with controlling USDA r egulations. The government also intr oduced the testimony of an employee who testified that Mustafa had attempted to persuade him to say that the fir e was caused by a pot of potatoes left on the stove. Testimony of witnesses regarding the food stamp fraud Mustafa was conducting fr om the 1. The supermarket was in serious financial trouble. Some of the income Mustafa was deriving from the supermarket was derived from a fraudulent food stamp scheme. Mustafa's only viable asset was the insurance policy on the building and the super market business. 3 supermarket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1379.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lamont</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</P> <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1917.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charset=utf 8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/445A43C3060EFEA788256A45005D38DB/$file/0035121.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D713F20D1A509CA88256A73007EA60D/$file/9915823.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have before us the question of whether the district court erred in ordering on remand that the Plaintiffs must apply for National Forest Service permits. I. The facts as follow were found by the district court in Adams v. Because many of the facts were set forth in Adams I. What follows is a truncated version containing the relevant facts for this appeal. Which was recorded December 4. The larger western tract is separated from the smaller eastern tract by National Forest land. Granted the United States a deed (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-2618.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2440.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. He was wrong. Reiterating its need for the information previously requested and mentioning that plaintiffs' claim forms were incomplete. The letter also stated: Please bear in mind that the claims must be substantiated and that we must have the information requested before a determination can be made by [the appropriate official]. 2 No further action will be taken on these claims until the information requested has been received (emphasis in original). This allegation was seemingly an endeavor to show that. Reported to the district judge that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DBD5DB043E626BF88256E5A00707D96/$file/0015967.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Have disputed the rights to water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers.1 Through its enactment of Public Law 101 618. This action involves Title II of Public Law 101 618 the Truckee Carson Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1059.html">YANCHENG BAOLONG BIOCHEMICAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, LTD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Was the seller of the subject merchandise.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>YBB appealed to the Court of International Trade.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The court affirmed Commerce s rescission. That YBB and Asia Europe were not a single entity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>YBB</u>. Supp. 2d at 1320.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>YBB appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <h1>Discussion</h1> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-3023.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. ALBERS<BR></A><BR> This is a timely direct appeal from the defendant/appellant's conviction and life sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Defendant Clayton Albers was originally indicted on February 24. James Randa was added as a conspirator in the second superseding indictment. Defendant Albers was convicted on all three counts of a third superseding indictment. Were involved in a venture to manufacture methamphetamine for distribution. Was the first prosecution witness. He was told by another inmate some of the basics of making methamphetamine. Cambron testified that defendant said he was interested and that if Cambron came up with the money he should call defendant. Including Cambron's idea of saying it was to be used as poultry feed and the suggestion discussed by defendant and Stuber that they could say it was to be used in the fertilizer business as a plant growth regulator. 000 was given to defendant by Marino for the cost of the chemical. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DCB5BD67247CCDC88256B5E005C68C2/$file/0016213.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. Have standing to bring a direct suit challenging the producer handler exemption. Regional raw milk prices are regulated under the Federal Milk Marketing Order System. See id. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8ECCEFBA99CFD46488256D780079CDA9/$file/0235042.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Should have heeded Henry David Thoreau's warning to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1286.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. They are deemed to have waived review of the earlier motion. We note also that although defendants' motions for acquittal and new trial were filed more than seven days after the verdicts were rendered and the jury discharged. The motions were timely because. See id. at 1471 (explaining that a sufficiency challenge untimely brought in the trial court is subject to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C5F3B1F60F563108825730C004C4974/$file/0735000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Lands Council was unlikely to prevail on its claims and that the balance of hardships favored the Forest Service. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Mission Brush Area The Project assessment area is in the Bonners Ferry Ranger District in the northern portion of the IPNF. The area is home to abundant plant and animal species. Much of the historic forest conditions have been replaced by dense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-6191.wpd.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruling that the United States' setoff of payments owed by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5360a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was David C. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether the electronic appointment calendars of six United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4607.opa.html">WORLDWIDE PRIMATES, INC. V. MCGREAL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Worldwide Primates. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1993).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/042096P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who by then was proceeding pro se. Soliman notified the court he was living in Michigan temporarily. Soliman argues the district court should have granted his March 29 motion for an extension. While we sympathize with Soliman's situation and may have taken different action than did the district court. 1293 (8th Cir. 1980) (holding it is critical to the trial court's power of control over its own docket and its ability to serve effectively all litigants that it maintain control over progress of cases before it. 373 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (declaring pro se parties are not excused from complying with procedural and substantive law). Although Soliman asserts he was residing out of state when the court entered an order warning of no further extensions. A litigant who invokes the processes of the federal courts is responsible for maintaining communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit. Plaintiff had been given repeated notices court intended to rule on motion and it was plaintiff's burden to rebut defendant's evidence). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/04-5448a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson were on brief. Were on brief. 2 Glen D. Conrad were on brief for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. A related appeal challenging the district court's denial of class certification to women farmers was heard the same day as this appeal. The members of which are selected locally and are located in over 2. The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) was combined with other Department entities to form the FSA. All references are to the FSA. The appellants alleged that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/98-2229.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. 489 CASES SHRIMP (9/15/1998, NO. 98-2229)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge</A>.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The question presented is whether or not the district court abused its discretion in requiring Sigma to pay the expenses incurred by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. We hold the award was proper and not an abuse of discretion.</P> <P> Sigma engaged in a scheme to bring adulterated shrimp into the United States where the shrimp were to be sold fraudulently. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was asked to come in and take appropriate action. It did and the shrimp were kept off the market. It argues that FDACS was neither a party nor an intervenor in this action and that 21 U.S.C. § 334 simply does not reach so far.</P> <P> 21 U.S.C. § 334(d)(1) provides:</P> <P> Any food. The expenses of such supervision shall be paid by the person obtaining release of the article under bond.</P> <P> </P> <P> 21 U.S.C. § 334(e) reads:</P> <P> When a decree of condemnation is entered against the article. A portion of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-1124.wpd.html">ANDERSON V. EBY<BR></A><BR> The tour was conducted on property owned by the United States Forest Service pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued to the defendants by the Forest Service in December 1989 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1002.htm">03-1002 -- BIODIVERSITY ASSOCIATES V. CABLES -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement between the Forest Service and various environmental groups regarding management of these lands. <p> The question presented is whether the extraordinary specificity of this legislation. Congress is permitted to be as specific as it deems appropriate. Settlement agreements between private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to legislate. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1583.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jill D. Singer</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Gregory J. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. Tab stops:.5in'>Carol Klopfenstein and John Brent appeal a deci </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1199.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Covington & Burling were on brief. L.L.P. were on brief. The Statute Regulation is not a stranger to the tobacco industry. Existing state law is not much more intrusive. Only Minnesota and Texas have required any reporting of tobacco ingredients. When Section 307B was enacted as a means of regulating the tobacco industry. Pro consumer bill that will give people all the information they need to make educated decisions about what they put in their bodies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-5267a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph D. With him on the brief were Peter D. We must decide whether an employee who secures a final administrative disposition finding discrimination but who is dissatisfied with the remedy may challenge only the remedy in the federal court action. When discrimination is found. The employing agency's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200503/04-5145a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Benjamin F. The Secretary argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the milk cooperatives were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6350.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. <hr> Standard of review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4251.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING This matter is before the court on Appellees' petition for rehearing. 2005 is withdrawn. An amended opinion is attached to this order. I. BACKGROUND The Thousand Lakes Community Forestry Initiative Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1393.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. is the parent company of ACI. Was to invest these funds in mutual funds. Although the Securities and Exchange Commission is pursuing an action against Credit Bancorp. The Plaintiffs have never recovered their assets. ACI purchased a Registered Investment Advisor's Liability Insurance Policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees' petition for panel rehearing filed in this appeal is granted for the sole and limited purpose of correcting the dates when water samples were taken from the Roosevelt Tunnel portal. The relevant sentence (page 36) will now read: Even the Plaintiffs' strongest evidence that water samples at the shaft and the tunnel portal (samples taken by Cripple Creek & Victor Mining <hr> Co.) both contain zinc and manganese is less than convincing given the uncertainties by which the data were collected. Page 36) will now read: See supra note 2. Although zinc and manganese were detected. In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied. A copy of which is attached to this order. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1510.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a qui tam action. Sitting by designation. (2) The Latin phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-11086.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. That he has suffered an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10637.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Todd was issued a computer by the USDA. The agents were also able to retrieve several images of child pornography from Todd's computer. Todd was charged with three counts involving the receipt and possession of child pornography on government property. The FBI was notified of the images by a student at Stanford University that saw the file names of the images (such as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60601.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that the Government was entitled to summary judgment. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Braswell failed to raise and substantiate with competent summary judgment evidence a material issue of fact supporting his arguments that the Government's lien is unenforceable for lack of consideration at its inception. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30230.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * Terral is an authorized applicator of Fipronil/Icon. Fipronil/Icon is applied to rice seed at the customer's request. The treated rice seed was applied to rice/crawfish fields by a crop duster. Several suits were brought Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun14/03-11086.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. That he has suffered an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun01/03-10637.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Todd was issued a computer by the USDA. The agents were also able to retrieve several images of child pornography from Todd's computer. Todd was charged with three counts involving the receipt and possession of child pornography on government property. The FBI was notified of the images by a student at Stanford University that saw the file names of the images (such as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug26/03-30916-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that Calhoun's total offense level was 24 and sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment on each count. I Calhoun was charged with wire fraud based on his development of thirty five distressed properties in Louisiana under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program run by the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5137.html">IMPRESA CONSTRUZIONI GEOM. DOMENICO GARUFI V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Vicki E. Of counsel were <u>Kenneth M.<a NAME= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5123.html">FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>John F. With him on the brief was <U>David M. Appellants are owners of low income rental housing units financed by mortgage loans from the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5043.html">DUREIKO JOSEPH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David W. We hold that the trial court improperly held that the government s actions allegedly constituting a breach of its contract with Pine Isle were ". That Pine Isle was collaterally estopped from disputing the discretionary nature of the government s actions. That the trial court correctly held that Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were legally inadequate. The undersigned hereby certifies and warrants that he is the owner or authorized agent of the owner or authorized agent of the owner [of] the [Pine Isle Mobile Home Park] . . . which has been declared uninhabitable under Chapter 17C of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Contractor shall preserve and protect all existing structures which have not been designated for demolition. Since under the Stafford Act the United States was immune from suit. Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were not viable. Since a claim for breach of contract was the appropriate remedy. The alleged government s actions were not authorized by an enactment of Congress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5019.html">STRICKLAND CAROLINE E V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <U>Lois J. <U>Circuit Judge.</P> </U><P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3117.html">HERMAN RICHARD D V. DOJ<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David W. Alleging that he was reassigned in retaliation for whistleblowing activities. <U>See</U> MSPB Docket No. Herman based his complaint was a protected disclosure under the Whistleblower Protection Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1545.html">NORTH AMERICAN PROCESSING CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <u>David W. We affirm.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1098.html">AJINOMOTO CO., INC. V. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Arthur I. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Catherine B. With him on the brief was <u>Kevin C. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Ari . Of counsel were <u>Martin L. ADM also appeals the district court's ruling that the '765 patent is valid and enforceable. Ajinomoto cross appeals the ruling that infringement was not willful. The judgment is affirmed. With modification of the damages period.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1035.html">PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL V. J.E.M. AG SUPPLY<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Daniel J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Herbert H. With him on the brief was <u>S. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1335.html">ORLANDO FOOD CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5136.html">KRYGOSKI CONSTRC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5134.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1212.html">TARGET V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1026.html">CERAMICA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5161.html">ELLETT CONSTRUCTION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1436.html">GRUPO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1388.html">ASTRA V. LEHMAN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5134.html">AINS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Kara L. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>James L. Cl. 522 (2003).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We find that the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that the Mint is a non appropriated funds instrumentality ( NAFI ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity to allow breach of contract suits against NAFIs other than in a few statutorily enumerated exceptions. Because the Mint i </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-3329.html">FREY V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Frey was employed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ). Colorado.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Delta Field Office is within MSHA s District 9.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>In June 2000. Frey and three other District 9 field office supervisors were notified by Tommy Hooker. That they were being reassigned to other District 9 field offices.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Mr. Frey was reassigned to the McAlester. After being informed that there was no vacant inspector position in Delta to which he could be demoted. He was removed from his position.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Mr. Mso pagination: none'>Reassignments of federal employees are authorized by regulation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> 5 C.F.R. § 335.102 (2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>In that regard. The Board has held that discipline is warranted for refusing to accept a legitimate directed reassignment and that removal is not an unreasonably harsh penalty for such a refusal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1252.html">HPI/GSA-3C, LLC. V. STEPHEN A. PERRY<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The briefs were submitted by <u>Scott M. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>David M. Appeals from the decision of the General Services </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1040.html">CORPUS GROUOP PLC, ET AL. V. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter Lichtenbaum</u> and <u>Troy H. Argued for defendant appellee United States International Trade Commission.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Lyn M. With him on the brief was <u>David M. For defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Jeanne E. 2002) ( Judgment ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The appellants named as defendants in this case are George W. Line height:200%'><span style='font weight:normal'>The appellants argue that the President acted beyond his delegated authority because the International Trade Commission ( the Commission ) was not evenly divided and thus could not trigger the President s authority to impose the duty under the Trade Act of 1974 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7395.html">CARPENTER, CHARTERED V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Ira E. Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Trial Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Michael J. 568.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Those limitations were originally implemented to protect the veteran from extortion or improvident bargains with unscrupulous lawyers who overcharged for work that consisted mainl </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5142.html">SCOTT TIMBER COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Ruth G. With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. This court also reverses the holding that the suspensions were reasonable as a matter of law.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>This court affirms the rest of the issues on appeal and remands for further proceedings.</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. FWS proposed that a listing of the murrelet as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>54 Fed. The Forest Service orally informed Scott that it was suspending operations under the § 318 contracts.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The temporary restraining order expired ten days later.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>However. That agency s operations will have on any newly listed species.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). That it was entitled to participate in the consultation process.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The formal consultation began on December 8. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5083.html">MARITRANS INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. <st1:State>Virginia</st1:State></st1:place>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Arthur J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Douglas N. Line height:200%'>Maritrans Inc. is a marine petroleum transport company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Maritrans Inc. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Maritrans asserted that the vessels were taken by the double hull requirement imposed by section 4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (". As far as twenty nine of the single hull tank vessels were concerned. Maritrans' takings claim was not ripe for adjudication.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Maritrans Inc. v. </u><st1:country region><st1:place><u>United States</u></st1:place></st1:country region>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3366.html">BETTY J. HOLDERFIELD V. MSPB<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Martha B. Holderfield is employed as a revenue agent at the Internal Revenue Service s ( IRS s ) Dalton. 2001) ( <u>Initial Decision</u> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The AJ determined that all but two were not personnel actions. as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2).<sp </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3331.html">KELLY BUTTERBAUGH V. DEPT OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>James M. Acted permissibly in charging Petitioners' military leave allowance for days on which they were not scheduled to work. That federal employees need take military leave only for those days on which they are required to work. Line height:200%'>Petitioners are full time employees of the Depar </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3204.html">POETT V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Martha B. Reviewing Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Stephanie Conley</u>. 1995 settlement agreement as untimely because the Administrative Judge ( AJ ) held the petition was not filed within a reasonable time after he learned of the alleged breach.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Poett v. Is not supported by substantial evidence.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Accordingly. The dismissal was error.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We therefore reverse the decision of the Board dismissing the petition and remand for further proceedings. </p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. Tab stops:.5in'><span style='mso tab count:1'>            </span>The following facts are undisputed:</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The settlement agreement did not specify a time limit for filing a petition for enforcement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Board dismissed the appeal as moot after the settlement agreement was executed and entered into the appeal record.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span></p> <p class=MsoBlockText style='margin:0in. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1224.html">DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE V. WILLIAM HOGARTH<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Kumar Vaswani</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Director.<span s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3174.html">JULIE L. BREHMER V. FAA<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3092.html">CHARLES D. GOINES V. MSPB<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1212r.html">FAG ITALIA S.P.A V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant FAG Bearings Corporation and FAG Italia S.p.A.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3067.html">LOUIS D. HALL, SR., V. DEPT OF THE TREASURY<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/may2002.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/may1998.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/february2001.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/august2001.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/august2000.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/april1998.cfm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3153c.html">U.S. V. ARCHIBALD R. SCHAFFER III,<BR></A><BR> They are quite right on this point. ).</p> <p>Before this court's decision in Schaffer I was issued. These appeals are moot and that the Presidential </p> <p>pardon ends all litigation.". The prosecutor advances the </p> <p>odd suggestion that Schaffer's conviction is established as a </p> <p>matter of law. Because the appeals process was termi </p> <p>nated prematurely.</p> <p>Certainly. For </p> <p>which he was sentenced on September twenty fifth. The independent counsel is wrong to suggest </p> <p>that Schaffer's conviction is a fait accompli. Finality was </p> <p>never reached on the legal question of Schaffer's guilt. Schaffer was sentenced on September 25. The matter was never actually put to rest. It was at that uncertain juncture that then </p> <p>President Clinton pardoned Schaffer. Vaca </p> <p>tur is here just and appropriate. The same is true of Schaffer's claim of </p> <p>innocence. That claim will never again be tried.</p> <p> . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1098a.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> King argued the cause and was on the briefs for <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>petitioner.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> . Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the brief were David R. III was on the brief for amicus curiae <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>FCM Coalition for Regulatory Fairness.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> . Circuit Judge:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>First American Discount Corpo <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ration seeks review of an order of the Commodity Futures <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Trading Commission (CFTC) holding the company jointly and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>severally liable for the acts of a commodities broker whose <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>liabilities First American had agreed to guarantee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>First <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>American contends that the CFTC regulation pursuant to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which it entered into the guarantee agreement is substantive <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ly and procedurally invalid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5437a.html">NATL ASSN CR DEF LAW V. DOJ<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were <i><p> Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time <p> the briefs were filed. With him on <p> the brief were <i>David W. At that time the only document <p> responsive to the NACDL's request was a working draft of <p> the OIG report.<p> <p> When the NACDL had not received a response within ten <p> business days. Was set to <p> expire on April 24. It feared </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5293a.html">AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs <p> <p> <p> were <i>Frank W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Ann M. Taylor</i> was on the brief for amici curiae National <p> Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it <p> was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and <p> enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens <p> to reject a publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1557a.html">WISCONSIN VALLEY IMPROVEMENT COMPANY V. FERC<BR></A><BR> With him </p> <p>on the briefs were Michael D. With him on </p> <p>the briefs was John H. With him on the briefs </p> <p>were Lois J. As they govern areas that are not part of any </p> <p>". Petitioner further ar </p> <p>gues that the enhancement plan is arbitrary and capricious as </p> <p>the required reduction in reservoir's water level would not </p> <p>result in wild rice growth. Since it is </p> <p>impossible to confine reductions in the water level to federally </p> <p>controlled land. That FERC was entitled to impose water level </p> <p>conditions on the entire project. </p> <p>agencies' decisions concerning the wild rice plan were not </p> <p>arbitrary and capricious. That FERC's decision to charge </p> <p>annual fees was.</p> <p>I. Id. s 797(e). </p> <p>That is. If a FERC licensed project is located ". WVIC was chartered by Wisconsin's </p> <p>legislature in 1907. A 50 year license for its project </p> <p>(the project was licensed in 1959. Its license was retroac </p> <p>tive to 1943). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5011a.html">ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. SHALALA DONNA E.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5242a.html">CHAMBER CMERC US V. REICH ROBERT B.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1374a.html">OMNIPOINT CORP V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5190a.html">DICKSON D. V. SECY DEF<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1333a.html">BLOCK DANA V. SEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5052c.html">TIMOTHY C. PIGFORD, ET AL., V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> It is <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5013a.html">STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL V. TOMMY THOMPSON<BR></A><BR> Ar gued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7130a.html">WILLIAM T. GRAY III V. THEISHA POOLE<BR></A><BR> Were on the motion for summary affir mance filed by appellees Theisha Poole. Calia were on the motion for summary affirmance filed by appellee Lisa M. Was on the opposi tions to appellees' motions for summary affirmance. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5449b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for amicus curiae on the side of appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5449a.html">WILLIE JEFFERSON V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for amicus curiae on the side of appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1548a.html">CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS, V. FAA<BR></A><BR> Lichman argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1402b.html">NEXT WAVE PRSNAL COMM V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Olson argued the cause for petitioners/appel lants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1371b.html">NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION V. SEC<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-8686.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-4796.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-3521.opa.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:<p> <p> It appears to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that the above styled case involves a question of state law that is determinative of the cause. Based on the facts recited herein:<p> Whether a party to a transaction who transmits false information which that party did not know was false. Despite the fact that an investigation by the recipient would have revealed the falsity of the information.<p> <p> I. STYLE OF THE CASE<p> <p> The style of the case in which this certification is made is as follows: Gilchrist Timber Co. Who was involved in timber. The appraisal stated that the timberland was zoned for agriculture. Was discussed at length.<p> Immediately after the closing. Plaintiffs learned that the vast majority of the timberland was actually zoned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94ftc.html">FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/94-6684.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-5812.man.html">RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES (3/15/1999, NO. 97-5812)<BR></A><BR> Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. THE WELFARE REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS</CENTER> FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMP WELFARE BENEFITS</P> <P> The federal government provides SSI benefits to impoverished individuals who are elderly. Aliens were eligible for both SSI and food stamp benefits on the same basis as citizens. The Act provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/96-9212.man.html">CHARLES V. BURTON (3/12/1999, NO. 96-9212)<BR></A><BR> Which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond.</P> <P> In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act. The district court found that the appellees were not joint employers of the farm workers under the AWPA and did not award the farm workers actual damages for a violation of the AWPA's registration provision. Both were to share in the profits. The workers were entitled only to statutory damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). Refused to award actual damages because the workers' injuries were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-10716.opn.html">BONE V. COMMISSIONER (3/21/2003, NO. 02-10716)<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/95-5198.opn.html">AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-5167.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BANKS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. A Corps biologist informed Banks that parts of lots IQ and IR were wetlands and that discharges onto those areas were unlawful without a permit. Accusing him of discharging fill into U.S. waters without a permit despite clear notice that his conduct was illegal. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/00-12402.opn.html">MCDANIEL V. MOORE (6/4/2002, NO. 00-12402)<BR></A><BR> The March 15 letter stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-8689.opa.html">STEWART V. HAPPY HERMAN'S CHESHIRE BRIDGE, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stewart v. Levine replied that lunch breaks were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-6369.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/94-7138_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR> Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/00-15703.opn.html">MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)<BR></A><BR> The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-3646.man.html">GARGIULO V. G.M. SALES, INC. (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3646)<BR></A><BR> The principal of the loan was payable on demand. During which Biada told Holland that NTG was considering increasing GMS's credit line. Holland testified that it was his impression that GMS was still current on its credit with NTG at the time of the conversation. Holland also asserted that it was not until a month later that Biada informed him that NTG had declined to increase GMS's line of credit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2002/02-10518.opn.html">LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. V. OLIN CORP. (12/6/2002, NO. 02-10518)<BR></A><BR> The active chemical ingredient in Pace is calcium hypochlorite ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-2083.man.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)<BR></A><BR> Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8871.opa.html">CHILDREE V. VAP/GA AG CHEM, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Childree v. Was terminated from her employment. Was a party to the hearing. Childree's testimony was unfavorable to UAP/GA. Her testimony allegedly exposed UAP/GA's assistance to Varner Bass in its fraudulent scheme against the government.<p> The question on appeal is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The facts are as follows.<p> While employed by UAP/GA. Whom Childree believed were merely subsidiary fronts for Varner Bass. Because she believed the re billing request was part of an attempt to defraud the United States government. Childree believed that Varner Bass's request for the re billings was an attempt to use subsidiary fronts to evade the $50. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-4410.opa.html">SMITH V. AVINO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Smith v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an official capacity suit against Metropolitan Dade County and its manager challenging the curfew that was imposed in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. The plaintiffs alleged the curfew was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Holding that the curfew was neither vague nor overbroad. <i>Smith v. These claims asserted that the curfew was overbroad because it impinged on plaintiffs' personal liabilities. That the curfew was void for vagueness because it was selectively enforced against these plaintiffs. The curfew was not unconstitutionally vague or overly broad. They cannot be held liable because they were not the final policy making authorities and are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. That plaintiffs here are entitled to a decision addressing their concerns about the constitutionality of the curfew.<p> As an alternative basis for affirming the district court. Defendants ask this Court to hold they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/96-6213.ma2.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)<BR></A><BR> All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-11694.opn.html">PICKETT V. IOWA BEEF PROCESSORS (4/20/2000, NO. 99-11694)<BR></A><BR> Lovel Blain and David Smith (collectively the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-6222.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N (4/11/2000, NO. 98-6222)<BR></A><BR> If the power and telephone companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay. The FCC also ruled (in the <EM>Report and Order</EM> ) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-8686.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-4796.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-3521.opa.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:<p> <p> It appears to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that the above styled case involves a question of state law that is determinative of the cause. Based on the facts recited herein:<p> Whether a party to a transaction who transmits false information which that party did not know was false. Despite the fact that an investigation by the recipient would have revealed the falsity of the information.<p> <p> I. STYLE OF THE CASE<p> <p> The style of the case in which this certification is made is as follows: Gilchrist Timber Co. Who was involved in timber. The appraisal stated that the timberland was zoned for agriculture. Was discussed at length.<p> Immediately after the closing. Plaintiffs learned that the vast majority of the timberland was actually zoned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94ftc.html">FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-6684.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-5812.man.html">RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES (3/15/1999, NO. 97-5812)<BR></A><BR> Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. THE WELFARE REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS</CENTER> FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMP WELFARE BENEFITS</P> <P> The federal government provides SSI benefits to impoverished individuals who are elderly. Aliens were eligible for both SSI and food stamp benefits on the same basis as citizens. The Act provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/96-9212.man.html">CHARLES V. BURTON (3/12/1999, NO. 96-9212)<BR></A><BR> Which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond.</P> <P> In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act. The district court found that the appellees were not joint employers of the farm workers under the AWPA and did not award the farm workers actual damages for a violation of the AWPA's registration provision. Both were to share in the profits. The workers were entitled only to statutory damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). Refused to award actual damages because the workers' injuries were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-10716.opn.html">BONE V. COMMISSIONER (3/21/2003, NO. 02-10716)<BR></A><BR> The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/95-5198.opn.html">AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/95-5167.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BANKS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. A Corps biologist informed Banks that parts of lots IQ and IR were wetlands and that discharges onto those areas were unlawful without a permit. Accusing him of discharging fill into U.S. waters without a permit despite clear notice that his conduct was illegal. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/00-12402.opn.html">MCDANIEL V. MOORE (6/4/2002, NO. 00-12402)<BR></A><BR> The March 15 letter stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-8689.opa.html">STEWART V. HAPPY HERMAN'S CHESHIRE BRIDGE, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stewart v. Levine replied that lunch breaks were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-6369.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/94-7138_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR> Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/00-15703.opn.html">MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)<BR></A><BR> The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-3646.man.html">GARGIULO V. G.M. SALES, INC. (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3646)<BR></A><BR> The principal of the loan was payable on demand. During which Biada told Holland that NTG was considering increasing GMS's credit line. Holland testified that it was his impression that GMS was still current on its credit with NTG at the time of the conversation. Holland also asserted that it was not until a month later that Biada informed him that NTG had declined to increase GMS's line of credit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2002/02-10518.opn.html">LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. V. OLIN CORP. (12/6/2002, NO. 02-10518)<BR></A><BR> The active chemical ingredient in Pace is calcium hypochlorite ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-2083.man.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (8/3/1998, NO. 97-2083)<BR></A><BR> Whether another federally protected sea turtle should have been allowed to join the Turtles as a party. The brightest light is the moon's reflection off the surf. Vehicles and other types of beachfront lighting have been documented in the disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of hatchling turtles </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-8871.opa.html">CHILDREE V. VAP/GA AG CHEM, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Childree v. Was terminated from her employment. Was a party to the hearing. Childree's testimony was unfavorable to UAP/GA. Her testimony allegedly exposed UAP/GA's assistance to Varner Bass in its fraudulent scheme against the government.<p> The question on appeal is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The facts are as follows.<p> While employed by UAP/GA. Whom Childree believed were merely subsidiary fronts for Varner Bass. Because she believed the re billing request was part of an attempt to defraud the United States government. Childree believed that Varner Bass's request for the re billings was an attempt to use subsidiary fronts to evade the $50. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-4410.opa.html">SMITH V. AVINO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Smith v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an official capacity suit against Metropolitan Dade County and its manager challenging the curfew that was imposed in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. The plaintiffs alleged the curfew was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Holding that the curfew was neither vague nor overbroad. <i>Smith v. These claims asserted that the curfew was overbroad because it impinged on plaintiffs' personal liabilities. That the curfew was void for vagueness because it was selectively enforced against these plaintiffs. The curfew was not unconstitutionally vague or overly broad. They cannot be held liable because they were not the final policy making authorities and are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. That plaintiffs here are entitled to a decision addressing their concerns about the constitutionality of the curfew.<p> As an alternative basis for affirming the district court. Defendants ask this Court to hold they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/96-6213.ma2.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)<BR></A><BR> All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-11694.opn.html">PICKETT V. IOWA BEEF PROCESSORS (4/20/2000, NO. 99-11694)<BR></A><BR> Lovel Blain and David Smith (collectively the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-6222.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N (4/11/2000, NO. 98-6222)<BR></A><BR> If the power and telephone companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay. The FCC also ruled (in the <EM>Report and Order</EM> ) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/94-6191.wpd.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the setoff was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. 553(b) because it occurred within ninety days before the Turners filed their bankruptcy petition. The court reasoned that the transaction in question was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. 547. The Department of Agriculture was reorganized. The ASCS was abolished and the new Consolidated Farm Service Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/93-2315.wpd.html">CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE V. BROWNER<BR></A><BR> Muys of Will & Muys. 101 Stat. 76 (codified at 33 U.S.C. 1251 1387). (2) The other two critical elements to tribal sovereignty are land and mineral rights. (3) See Amicus Curiae Br. of the New Mexico Municipal League in Support of Appellant City of Albuquerque. One measure is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/index.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/95-6000.html">KELLEY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Were on the brief for amici curiae. Was unconstitutional. I. Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 was enacted by the 103rd Congress. Was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement). Or provision is no more burdensome than compliance with. Which was relied upon by the district court but was not cited in plaintiffs' complaint. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not always applicable to suits filed against federal entities or officials. The doctrine does not apply in such cases because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-1223.wpd.html">LODGE TOWER CONDO ASSOC. V. LODGE PROPS. INC.<BR></A><BR> Section 1716 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-3301.html">HERRERA V. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/96-1460.wpd.html">FRIENDS OF THE BOW V. THOMPSON<BR></A><BR> Friends claims that: (1) approval of the sale was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/92-7117.html">CHICKASAW NATION V. OKLAHOMA<BR></A><BR> It's opinion and order affirming in part and reversing in part is published at 115 S. The case was submitted to the district court upon stipulated facts on cross motions for summary judgment. It does not collect sales taxes on its sales to tribal or non tribal members but is required to pay sales taxes on motor fuel products and beer when it purchases them from its wholesale vendors at said retail locations. Defendants [the State] impose sales taxes on retail purchases of goods made by plaintiff where defendants contend such goods are used for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-6034.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. COPUS<BR></A><BR> Virgil Allan Copus was convicted of making a false statement to a bank. Although ostensibly only the smaller loan was to refinance existing debt. Most of these funds were immediately used to satisfy existing debt to Hydro and the Bank of Canute. The notes were secured by Mr. Ninety percent of their value was guaranteed by the Federal Home Administration (FHA). These inspections were performed by Hydro's vice president in charge of its office in Eakly. The first hand accounts of what transpired at the December 16 cattle inspection are fundamentally consistent. Copus was grazing stock. Beerwinkle how many cattle were there. Copus thought several head were missing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tenth Circuit
176 OPINION/ORDER
Tenth Circuit
176 03-1393 -- ALBERT V. ADVISOR'S CAPITAL INVESTMENT INC. -- 10/07/2004

Inc. is the parent company of ACI. Was to invest these funds in mutual funds. Although the Securities and Exchange Commission is pursuing an action against Credit Bancorp. The Plaintiffs have never recovered their assets.

Prior to delivering the funds to Credit Bancorp. Clients of [ACI] shall have no claim directly against [Cumberland] for any loss in any Account.

176 03-4277 -- BOSWELL V. JASPERSON -- 09/02/2004

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

In this quiet title action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

176 02-1480 -- FRIENDS OF MAROLT PARK V. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 09/08/2004
176 03-6014 -- POWERS V. HARRIS -- 08/23/2004

Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (
176 03-4080 -- UTAH ENVIRONMENTAL CONGRESS V. BOSWORTH -- 06/23/2004

Circuit Judge.

176 02-9552 -- INTHASITH V. ASHCROFT -- 05/14/2004

Circuit Judges.

176 02-2223 -- WATTS V. NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY -- 03/19/2004

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Lee Watts appeals the district court's

176 02-1536 -- COLORADO OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE COALITION V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 02/04/2004

We conclude Plaintiff's federal action is moot and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

176 01-4252 -- BELL V. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULURAL COOPERATIVE -- 11/07/2003

The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative. Insurance.

If a member whose ranch is located beyond the established feed route still requests delivery. One of the cooperative's written objectives is to ensure members do not subsidize one another. The discounted price was one penny less per pound than the delivered price.

Jack Bell became a Fur Breeders member in 1955 and continued as a member until 2000. Is more than seventy miles from both the Logan plant and the nearest point of the established delivery route. 049.51.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

It is against this backdrop and the costs associated with hauling their own feed that the Bells brought their antitrust litigation against Fur Breeders. Determining their antitrust claims were sufficient to withstand such a motion. Id. at 1244 45.

Thereafter. A different district court judge was assigned to the case. Determining

176 02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003

Senior Circuit Judge.

176 02-1204 -- PERSIK V. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY -- 03/03/2003

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appellant Raymond Charles Persik appeals pro se from the district court order dismissing his Title VII employment discrimination claims against defendants appellees Colorado State University (CSU) and Adecco Colorado (Adecco). Persik was a graduate student and teaching assistant in the CSU chemistry department and also an employee of Adecco. The district court reviewed de novo all portions of the magistrate judge's recommendation to which objections were filed. CSU moved for dismissal contending that (1) service of process was ineffective and (2) even if service had been accomplished. CSU is not an entity that is capable of being sued. The magistrate judge agreed with CSU that service was defective. He recommended dismissal with prejudice because CSU is not a proper defendant. Persik should have sued the Colorado State Board of Agriculture (SBA). The SBA is given

176 01-8102 -- GORDON V. NORTON -- 02/25/2003

The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan

The ESA is designed to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they may be conserved. 16 U.S.C.

176 01-1256 -- MINCIN V. VAIL HOLDINGS INC. -- 10/09/2002

Which he was instructed to redeem at the bike rental area atop the mountain. Mincin was presented with a Bicycle Rental Agreement which contained exculpatory language and which he signed without reading completely. THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND WAIVER OF LEGAL RIGHTS.

I acknowledge that participation in mountain biking or transporting a mountain bike up a ski lift (the

176 00-1486 -- KING V. U.S. -- 09/05/2002

The complaint averred that the Government was negligent in that it knew. Or should have known. That the Pike National Forest in Colorado was in an unusually high condition of combustability and that a fire ban should have been ordered. Id. at 8. The central ruling to this appeal is the dismissal of the Government's cross claim against defendant Wayne Emmett McKillop (McKillop). The cross claim against McKillop alleges he is liable to the Government for damages suffered as a result of a Buffalo Creek fire in the Pike National Forest. The liability of McKillop is averred to arise pursuant to terms of a Term Special Use Permit (the permit) obtained by McKillop from the Forest Service. He is alleged to be liable for damages suffered as a result of the fire. Was as follows. The fire is alleged to have been started by several students of defendant McKillop who were on a field trip supervised by McKillop. The forest fire was started as a result of a camp fire built by the students on the camping trip. Id. at 108.
176 99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/05/2002

Jr. were convicted for unrelated counts of illegally possessing eagle feathers in violation of sections 703 and 668(a) of Title 16 of the United States Code. Was not criminally prosecuted.
176 01-3225 -- WALKNER V. U.S. -- 08/02/2002

The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.

Dennis Walkner. 2671 2680.

176 00-4146 -- UTAH SHARED ACCESS ALLIANCE V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE -- 04/25/2002

The decision was taken as part of an effort to reduce sedimentation in lakes on Boulder Top. Biologists had observed that sedimentation was contributing to increased winter kill of trout populations in area lakes. The Forest Service concluded that poorly constructed roads on Boulder Top were a major source of the problem. Finding the Forest Service had complied with NEPA and that its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
176 00-6406 -- GIBSON V. GLICKMAN -- 08/03/2001

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellants J.R. and Nancy Gibson appeal from a decision of the district court that upheld an adverse final decision of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). We have jurisdiction under 5 . A court is authorized to

176 00-7133 -- U.S. V. HOLDER -- 07/10/2001

Fred Lloyd Holder was charged in the Eastern District of Oklahoma with murder in violation of 18 U.S.C.
176 00-2318 -- U.S. V. WHITE -- 03/27/2001

Robert Emerson White was sentenced to six months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons followed by a two year term of supervised release. Contending not one is reasonably related to protecting the public or achieving his rehabilitation. White selected the mode of delivery and was assured the seller was not involved in a sting operation. White was again discovered drinking alcohol. White to six months in custody followed by two years of supervised release with five special conditions.
176 99-1226 -- WELLS V. SHALALA -- 09/21/2000

Affirm.
176 99-1467 -- ELEFANT V. METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE OF DENVER -- 08/07/2000

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

William Elefant appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against Metropolitan State College of Denver (

176 99-1125 -- COLORADO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION V. U. S. FOREST SERVICE -- 07/18/2000

Alternatively because it held there was no
176 99-8056 -- BISCHOFF V. MYERS -- 06/09/2000

Was estopped from denying their permits. The district court held that the Bischoffs' administrative claims were not judicially reviewable because the issuance of grazing permits is wholly committed to agency discretion. That they had failed to plead facts sufficient to establish estoppel against the government.

The facts underlying this action are set out in detail in the district court opinion and we discuss them only briefly here. When land subject to grazing permits is sold. Although events after this point are disputed. The Forest Service refused to issue new permits to the Bischoffs based on its determination that no new permits would be issued for the season.

As we have mentioned. Is not redressable in court because a court may not order the agency to perform what is a purely discretionary act. See Bischoff. This conclusion is required by our decision in Baca v. 1198 99 (10th Cir. 1999) (whether to issue a grazing permit is a matter completely within the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior).

Because we agree with the district court that the Bischoff's lacked standing to bring this action.

176 99-6217 -- CANADIAN COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY V. CITY OF UNION -- 06/14/2000

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs Canadian County Water Authority and Canadian County Rural Water.

176 98-1075 -- BLACKHAWK-CENTRAL CITY SANITATION DISTRICT V. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY -- 05/31/2000

Circuit Judges.

176 98-1075 -- BLACKHAWK-CENTRAL CITY SANITATION DISTRICT V. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. -- 04/11/2000

The action was originally filed in Colorado state court but. Was removed to federal court pursuant to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
176 99-5108 -- U.S. V. BEKEDERMO -- 11/30/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

In 1996. Reimposed an order of restitution.

The case is before the court on counsel's Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Counsel indicates that Bekedermo insists on raising the following two issues on appeal: (1) whether she was properly supervised by the probation office in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The district where Bekedermo was convicted and began serving her term of supervised release. During those periods when she was living in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to show that Bekedermo had violated her terms of supervised release. Concluded that neither issue is meritorious. Bekedermo was given a copy of her counsel's Anders brief and an opportunity to respond. No such response was ever filed.

After conducting a thorough review of the record in this case. We agree that Bekedermo's assertions of error are completely without merit. As to Bekedermo's claims regarding the propriety of a probation officer from the Northern District of Oklahoma supervising her while she was residing in the Easter District of Oklahoma.

176 97-1475 -- COTTRELL LTD V. BIOTROL INTERNATIONAL INC. -- 09/10/1999

Because the parties' products are antimicrobial pesticides. The cleaners and disinfectants are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 98-1379 -- COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION V. DOMBECK -- 08/09/1999

The Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement. The Forest Service exercised jurisdiction over this matter because the existing ski area and the Category III area are within the White River National Forest. The Forest Service concluded the expansion : (1) is consistent with the applicable Forest Plan. (2) will significantly improve the recreational experience for visitors to the Vail Ski Area and the White River National Forest by providing more reliable and dependable skiing conditions. (3) will build skier visitation during non peak periods. Will not threaten the viability of lynx. Will have minor socioeconomic effects. Will have an acceptable level of impact on other resources.

By way of history we point out that Vail submitted a general expansion proposal in 1986. Subject to subsequent site specific environmental analysis.

176 98-7077 -- LANDRY V. COOPER -- 03/15/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal arises from Appellant David Landry's request for review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of the final decision of the National Appeals Division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The National Appeals Division upheld the hearing officer's determination that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) properly designated certain property as wetland and that the wetland was not an artificial wetland. The controlling standards are set forth in the APA. See 7 U.S.C.

176 98-4123 -- EDWARDS V. MACFARLANE -- 03/04/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff A.G. Defendants are all present or . The other defendants moved for summary judgment on the bases that they were not parties to the settlement agreement. Any breach of contract claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. They were qualifiedly immune from the tort claims. They contended the case should be dismissed because they were not properly served. Plaintiff first contends that the district and magistrate judges assigned to his case were biased against him and should have recused themselves. We therefore will not consider the issue on appeal. See Walker v. We note that plaintiff's generalized and conclusory allegations of bias are insufficient to show a need for recusal or disciplinary action against the judges. We conclude that plaintiff has not identified any error in the district court's ruling.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the

176 97-7143 -- U.S. V. JONES -- 02/10/1999

Which provides breakfasts and lunches to children in needy areas during the summer months when they are not in school. OIG discovered more meals were claimed than cartons of milk purchased based on the number of milks Mr. That is. Jones then wrote and signed a statement describing his falsifying claim forms and directing others to change accountings of total meal counts
176 97-1263 -- GREEN V. YATES -- 02/18/1999

Circuit Judges.

176 97-8078 -- LEONHARDT V. WESTERN SUGAR CO. -- 11/13/1998

Was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs are Wyoming farmers who grow sugar beets under contract for Western Sugar Company. Where they were put in a pile and weighed.

176 97-1158 -- BRANSON SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-82 V. ROMER -- 11/20/1998

That first state constitution responded to the federal government's grant of lands for common schools by establishing a
176 97-9506 -- AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 09/01/1998

The EPA must approve the program. See id. The EPA retains oversight authority over state permit programs and may withdraw its approval of a particular program if it determines the state is not complying with the Act. See id.
176 97-6003 -- MYERS V. OKLAHOMA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM. -- 08/20/1998

Tom's aunt out of the apartment in which they all were staying. Although she knew that her husband was drunk. Troutman that he was tired of living and that he wanted to die. Myers was pointing the weapon at him. Summary judgment is appropriate if the plaintiffs have failed to present evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the County or Sheriff Sharp violated the relevant constitutional standards. See Kaul v. The Effect of the Jury Verdict

The defendants argue that we should not undertake a de novo review of the record with respect to the excessive force claim because the jury verdict in favor of the individual officers precludes a finding that Sheriff Sharp (in his official capacity) or the County

176 97-6241 -- U.S. V. FOWLER -- 07/27/1998

The petition is granted. Is withdrawn. The attached order and judgment is substituted in its place.

Entered for the Court

Patrick Fisher. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The federal government filed suit to collect on notes in default held by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). We must consider whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We deny the government's motion to dismiss.

The next jurisdictional issue we must consider is mootness. We have no subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal.

176 96-2134 -- GOWAN V. U.S DEPT. OF THE AIR FORCE -- 07/17/1998

We affirm.

176 97-7144 -- ROBBALAA V. U.S. -- 06/11/1998

Robbalaa argued that the district court should have excused his failure to appear because (1) he had a death in the family requiring travel to Michigan. The district court denied Robbalaa's motion:

Plaintiff's stated reasons for his non attendance are inadequate as no details or particulars are provided regarding the

176 97-6241 -- U.S. V. FOWLER -- 06/05/1998

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The federal government filed suit to collect on notes in default held by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). We must consider whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We deny the government's motion to dismiss.

The next jurisdictional issue we must consider is mootness. We have no subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal.

176 96-1388 -- HOYL V. BABBITT -- 11/25/1997

Plaintiff asserts that: 1) the district court's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Authorization to mine are prerequisites for a
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Arguing that the Court of Federal Claims erred in computing the damages to which it was entitled. Which were made following a trial. The judgment in favor of North Star is reversed.1 The case is remanded to the Court of Federal Claims. Which is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the United States and to dismiss North Star's Second Amended Complaint. It is not necessary for us to reach North Star's cross appeal. The pertinent facts are not in dispute. WAPA is one of four power marketing administrations within the U.S. WAPA is in the business of moving power. A power control area is a bounded subsystem within the larger national power grid within which electrical power levels are maintained at a level equaling their As noted. North Star was a third party beneficiary of the contract between AEPCO and WAPA. This adjustment of power supply to meet changing demand is known as
176 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Lyman D. With her on the brief were Sue Ellen Wooldridge. The land was initially conferred on the United States in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Which was granted on January 19. The lease was last renewed in 1989. Colvin's lease was canceled and trespass damages were assessed against it. The BLM issued a notice of intent to have its cattle removed. Is subject to (a) modifications. Because the trial court relied on matters outside of the pleadings in dismissing Colvin's complaint and Colvin was given a reasonable opportunity to present materials relevant to the government's motion. Summary judgment is appropriate
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were John M. Of counsel was Heather F. Because the Board correctly determined that the applied for mark is the generic designation for that variety of grass seed and hence is not entitled to trademark registration. Applicant had previously designated the term
176 OPINION/ORDER
A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art
176 OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Schoenrogge was a legal assistant at the Eloy Immigration Court in Eloy. Schoenrogge and that the penalty of removal was an appropriate penalty. Apparently the Schoenrogge did not show that the Agency's action was in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 05 3135 2 DISCUSSION This court affirms a decision of the Board unless it is arbitrary. Schoenrogge was arrested for the incident and subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. 2003001084 (Casa Grande Mun. He challenges the Meehans' testimony that he was intoxicated at the time. Which are virtually unreviewable on appeal. Are fully supported by the record. Such determinations are
176 OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because the Board's determination that Noble failed to establish Board jurisdiction was not arbitrary. Was supported by substantial evidence. Because the Board's finding that Noble did not exhaust her remedies before the Office of Special Counsel (
176 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Ruth G. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was David B. Twenty five percent of the payments received by the United States for timber sold from a national forest must be paid to the states for the benefit of the public schools and roads in the counties where the national forest is situated: 16 U.S.C. §500. By the Secretary of the Treasury to the State in which such national forest is situated. To be expended as the State legislature may prescribe for the benefit of the public schools and public roads of the county or counties in which such national forest is situated: Provided. That when any national forest is in more than one State or county the distributive share to each from the proceeds of such forest shall be proportional to its area therein. . . . The plaintiffs are three counties within the Eldorado National Forest. Their complaint is that if the United States had not terminated these timber contracts. They would have received 25% of the contract revenue. Ruling that the Counties have no entitlement to the claimed relief. 04 5071 2 DISCUSSION The Court of Federal Claims observed that 16 U.S.C. §500 obligates the United States to pay 25% of moneys
176 OPINION/ORDER
This disposition Is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Shoaf's appeal because his resignation was not involuntary. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. He alleged that his resignation was involuntary and that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for making disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Shoaf's appeal because his separation was neither a constructive removal action taken by the agency nor a
176 OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Mills asserts that he is entitled to disability retirement benefits under the Federal Employees' Retirement System. I. BACKGROUND Mills was a Tobacco Grader with the United States Department of Agriculture (
176 OPINION/ORDER
On the brief was Clark B. On the brief were Peter D. Warren is not entitled to a survivor annuity based on the two court orders entered in connection with her divorce from Richard Pike. Pike were married on November 10. Pike were subsequently divorced. Which plan is more particularly described in the Qualified Domestic Relations Order in this [case] which applies to vested sums which are accumulated or vested as of the date of this de[c]ree. Which was entered pursuant to the settlement agreement. The 1997 QDRO also provided that
176 OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Postal Service proposed Odom's removal on charges that he was continuously absent without permission beginning on March 19. He was not AWOL in the traditional sense because his supervisors knew they could find him performing his duties as a union officer. Upholding a punishment that was disproportionately severe in relation to his misconduct. Upholding punishment for his failure to follow the proper notice procedures when the Postal Service could only have been harmed by his absence itself. The administrative judge held that his removal was justified
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
FieldElemFormat=gif
176 OPINION/ORDER
176 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended by adding new footnote 22 at the end of the first sentence. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR 8039 22 This holding applies only to the extent that the equitable intrafarm exemption was used to find that no abandonment or forfeiture had occurred as to the parcels at issue in the underlying transfer applications. Transfer applicant Rambling River is not affected by our remand order because its parcels were not covered by an intrafarm exemption. The district court affirmed the State Engineer's Ruling No. 4591 to the extent that it stated that there was no clear and convincing evidence of nonuse on any specific portion of Rambling River's parcels. Rambling River's parcels were not part of the district court's remand order and the State Engineer did not address Rambling River in his Supplemental Ruling on Remand No. 4750. In which the intrafarm exemption was applied to the other parcels in question. Which have not been challenged. Rambling River's transfer applications are not subject to further proceedings on remand.
176 OPINION/ORDER
Which is situated on the Tribe's aboriginal homeland. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Pyramid Lake's sole source of water is the Truckee River. The Project 2631 was designed to use the waters from both the Truckee and Carson Rivers to irrigate a substantial area in the vicinity of Fallon. Which by that time was under the management of the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID).1 The status of Truckee River water rights ostensibly determined under the Orr Ditch Decree was not resolved. The Supreme Court held that the United States and the Tribe were precluded on res judicata grounds from relitigating the water rights determination embodied in the Orr Ditch Decree. The Project was operated by the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID) under a delegation of authority from the United States. 2632 addition. Holding that
176 OPINION/ORDER
The frigid region is far reaching and so is the range of wildlife that inhabits it. KEMPTHORNE mental plaintiffs have challenged the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (
176 OPINION/ORDER
Who are United States citizens. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the agency's interpretation or application of the statute is inconsistent with the Convention. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States continuously since 1992. He was served with a Notice to Appear that charged him with removability for being present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Have a ten year old son and an eight year old daughter who were born in the United States. Petitioner and Morales have decided that. If Petitioner is removed to Mexico. The children will stay in this country with their mother or with one of their permanent resident relatives so that the children can take advantage of this country's superior educational and economic opportunities. Petitioner would be separated from his children if he were removed. They also teach him about what they have learned at school. Have been learning English through bilingual instruction.). When they were apart recently because of Petitioner's brief incarceration.
176 OPINION/ORDER
Are seriously ill Californians who use marijuana for medical purposes on the recommendation of their doctors. Such use is legal under California's Compassionate Use Act. That ruling is now before us. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance. (3) that there is
176 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The only issue in this appeal is whether § 207 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act (
176 OPINION/ORDER
Senior District Judge.* This case became moot after our opinion was published. While proceedings were on going and before the mandate was issued.
176 OPINION/ORDER
We are presented with three questions. The first is whether. It is feasible to join the Navajo Nation as a party. We hold that it is feasible to join the Nation in order to effect complete relief between the parties. Because the EEOC is an agency of the United States. The second is whether the EEOC's claim presents a nonjusticiable political question. The third is whether the district court erred in dismissing the EEOC's claim that Peabody failed to keep records as required by Title VII. They are qualified. 493 (2003) (explaining that the Department of the Interior's approval is necessary before the leases become effective). If the lease terms are violated. Alleging that Peabody was unlawfully discriminating on the basis of national origin by implementing the Navajo employment preference. As well as unspecified other non Navajo Native Americans for positions for which they were otherwise qualified. On the Navajo and Hopi reservations and on the tribes' joint land have been extensively litigated. Navajo employment preference provisions also have been the subject of prior litigation.
176 OPINION/ORDER
On the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no triable issue of material fact that a constitutional violation had been committed. Because Squaw Valley presented evidence that Singer may have been motivated by personal animus. The resort is naturally traversed by the South Fork of Squaw Creek (the
176 OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND TSI is an Alaska corporation that performs asbestosremediation services. The mill had closed in 1993 and was scheduled for demolition. The powerhouse was a large structure. The powerhouse was in a state of disrepair. There were holes of all sizes in the walls and ceiling. TSI's primary contractual responsibility was to remove asbestos insulation on the pipes. The project was stopped. One of the EPA's concerns was that TSI was washing wastewater. Sent a letter to the EPA explaining how TSI was complying with regulatory requirements. The letter stated that it was submitted for settlement purposes. Enclosed with the letter was a statement. Asserting that TSI was not washing wastewater into the powerhouse drains. 6 UNITED STATES v. Before the powerhouse was demolished. The EPA contacted Wade and asked him to take another look at one of the pipes in the powerhouse from which TSI was to have removed asbestos. Stemming from allegations that Rushing solicited employees to sign the false statement that TSI was not washing wastewater into Silver Bay.
176 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Forest Act is sometimes referred to by its acronym NFMA. 1 IDAHO SPORTING CONGRESS v. Which is the largest wilderness area in the contiguous 48 states. Is located partially within the Forest. Is required by statute and regulation to safeguard the continued viability of wildlife in the Forest. To ensure that the action is consistent with the forest plan. All citations to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 1999 version. Seven
176 OPINION/ORDER
While his appeal from the suspension order was pending. Seeking to enjoin the state proceedings on the ground that the Board had failed to preserve evidence to which Plaintiff was constitutionally entitled. Defendants are the Board. 2 which is the administrative body charged with overseeing horse racing in California.
176 OPINION/ORDER
BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE *Gale Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Southwest challenges the measures Defendants have taken to ensure the protection of seven endangered wetland species. We have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to intervene as of right as a final appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. FWS must prepare and evaluate a biological opinion to ensure that the project will not jeopardize the continued existence of covered species. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)(2). The purpose of the NCCPA is to encourage planning among affected interests for habitat protection of species to avert their listing under the ESA. Declaring in part: (c) Natural community conservation planning is an effective tool in protecting California's natural diversity while reducing 13926 In 1990. FISH & GAME CODE § 2801. 13927 and other municipalities within the plan's area are responsible for developing their own
176 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: At page 9312 of the slip opinion. Because we are satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial. 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (
176 OPINION/ORDER
Is GRANTED. 11096 UNITED STATES v. Is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the following opinion. 2003 are denied as moot. Concluding that it was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of Mackby's offense. Who is neither a physician nor a physical therapist. Medicare Part B is a voluntary insurance program that pays a portion of the costs of some services not covered by Part A. 42 U.S.C. § 1395k. The clinic was subject to the cap applicable to a PTIP. Because the government was led to believe that Dr. Mackby was supervising physical therapy. Did not provide or direct any medical services at the clinic and did not know his son was using his PIN. Mackby himself is a layperson and did not provide physical therapy or other medical services to patients. A physical therapist in independent practice was defined as one who engaged in the practice of physical therapy on a regular basis without the administrative and professional control of an employer. We further held that both the treble damages and the civil monetary penalty provided for in the FCA are.
176 OPINION/ORDER
The Center brought this action pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the ESA alleging that the Fisheries Service was violating the consultation and take provisions of the ESA through the issuance of fishing permits to longline fishing vessels in California. The district court found that the issuance of permits under the Compliance Act does not invoke the consultation requirements of the ESA because the Fisheries Service did not have sufficient discretion to condition permits for the benefit of a protected species. Longline fishing involves the use of a line that stretches several miles from a vessel and is anchored to appropriate depths. Attached to the longline are many additional lines to which weights and baited hooks are fastened. Most U.S. vessels that engaged in longline fishing were based in Hawaii. Giving a 60 day notice of intent to sue for violations by the Fisheries Service of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act.3 The Center first contended that the Fisheries Service is violating Section 7 of the ESA by failing to initiate and complete consultations concerning the effects on threatened and endangered species of longline fishing by U.S. vessels.