Cite as 24 A.D. 939

(No. 9972)

In re DON HALL. P&S Docket No. 3482. Decided July 20, 1965.

Bonding requirements-Suspension of registration-Default

Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business under the act without maintaining the required bond and is suspended as a registrant until he fully complies with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations issued thereunder.

Mr. Samuel J. Harris for complainant.

Mr. Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner.

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

DECISION AND ORDER

The recommended decision and order of the hearing examiner filed June 18, 1965, to which respondent did not file exceptions, are adopted as the final decision and order in this proceeding.

This order shall become effective on the 10th day after service thereof upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties.

HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), instituted by a complaint filed March 15, 1965, by the Director, Packers and Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Service (presently the Consumer and Marketing Service), United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent is registered with the Secretary under the act as a dealer buying and selling livestock in commerce for his own account and is charged with engaging in business as a dealer in commerce without filing and maintaing a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the rules of practice were served upon the respondent March 19, 1965.

At the time of service of the complaint, respondent was notified in writing that an answer thereto should be filed within 20 days after such service and that, in accordance with section 202.9 of the rules of practice (9 CFR 202.9), failure to file an answer

Cite as 24 A.D. 939

would constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint, and, in effect a waiver of oral hearing. Notwithstanding such notice, the respondent has not filed an answer. The matter was referred to Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner, Office of Hearing Examiners, United States Department of Agriculture for the preparation of a report without further investigation or hearing pursuant to section 202.9 (c) of the rules of practice.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, whose address is Edgeley, North Dakota, is now, and was at all times material herein, engaged in the business of a dealer, buying and selling livestock in commerce for his own account, and is now, and was at all times material herein, registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as a dealer subject to the act.

2. Ashley Livestock Sales Company stockyard, Ashley, North Dakota, hereinfater referred to as the stockyard, is now, and was at all times material herein, a posted stockyard subject to the provisions of the act.

3. During the period from January 28, 1963, to the date of the execution of this complaint, respondent maintained a surety bond in the amount of $5,000 to secure performance of his dealer obligations.

4. Based upon his volume of business transacted as a dealer during 1963, respondent was required, under the act and the regulations, to increase from $5,000 to $10,000, the amount of the bond maintained by him to secure performance of his dealer obligations. By letters dated August 18, 1964, September 3, 1964, and November 5, 1964, the Area Supervisor, Packers and Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, for the area that includes the State of North Dakota, notified respondent of the required increase in his bond coverage. Notwithstanding said notices, respondent has continued to engage in the business of a dealer, buying and selling livestock at the stockyard, without furnishing the required additional bond coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondent's operation in business as a dealer under the act without a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as set forth in Finding of Fact 4, constitutes a wilful violation of section 312(a)

Cite as 24 A.D. 941

of the act and sections 201.29 and 201.30 of the regulations issued thereunder (9 CFR 201.29 and 201.30). See e.g., In re Bennie L. Pence 24 A.D. 311 (1965). Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from such violation and be suspended as a registrant under the act until he fully complies with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations issued thereunder, as recommended by complainant.

PROPOSED ORDER

Respondent shall cease and desist from engaging in business in commerce under the act in any capacity for which bonding is required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder.

Respondent is suspended as a registrant under the act until he complies fully with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations issued thereunder. At the request of respondent, when he demonstrates that he has complied with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations, a supplemental order will be issued in this proceeding terminating this suspension.

This order shall become effective on the 10th day after service thereof upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties.

(No. 9973)

In re FRANCIS J. EGER. P&S Docket No. 3437. Decided July 21, 1965.

Bonding requirements-Cease and desist-Default

Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business in commerce under the act in any capacity for which bonding is required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or the equivalent, as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder.

Mr. Samuel J. Harris for complainant.

Mr. Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner.

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

Cite as 24 A.D. 941

DECISION AND ORDER

The recommended decision and order of the hearing examiner filed June 24, 1965, to which respondent did not file exceptions, are adopted as the final decision and order in this proceeding except that the recommended suspension of respondent as a registrant under the act contained therein is hereby deleted therefrom as complainant has indicated that respondent is now in compliance with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations issued thereunder.

This order shall become effective on the 6th day after service thereof upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties.

HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), instituted by a complaint filed December 18, 1964, by the Director, Packers and Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Service (presently the Consumer and Marketing Service), United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent is registered with the Secretary under the act as a dealer buying and selling livestock in commerce for his own account and is charged with engaging in business as a dealer in commerce without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the rules of practice were served upon the respondent December 21, 1964.

At the time of service of the complaint, respondent was notified in writing that an answer thereto should be filed within 20 days after such service and that, in accordance with section 202.9 of the rules of practice (9 CFR 202.9), failure to file an answer would constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint, and, in effect a waiver of oral hearing. Notwithstanding such notice, the respondent has not filed an answer. The matter was referred to Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner, Office of Hearing Examiners, United States Department of Agriculture for the prepartion of a report without further investigation or hearing pursuant to section 202.9 (c) of the rules of practice.

Cite as 24 A.D. 941

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Showalter's Livestock Exchange stockyard, Duncansville, Pennsylvania, hereinafter called the stockyard, is now, and was at all times material herein, a posted stockyard subject to the provisions of the act.

2. Respondent, an individual, whose address is 607 Portage Road, Cresson, Pennsylvania, is now, and was at all times material herein, engaged in the business of a dealer within the meaning of the act, buying and selling livestock in commerce for his own account, and is now, and was at all times material herein, registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as a dealer under the act.

3. The surety bond which respondent maintained to secure performance of his dealer obligations under the act was terminated on February 27, 1963. The Area Supervisor, Packers and Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Services, United States Department of Agriculture, for the Area that includes the State of Pennsylvania, by a letter dated February 19, 1963, and received by respondent on February 21, 1963, notified respondent of the termination date of his bond and informed him that he would have to furnish the required bond if he continued to operate as a registrant under the act after February 27, 1963. Notwithstanding said notice, respondent continued to engage in the business of a dealer, buying and selling livestock at the stockyard for his own account, without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent as required by the act and the regulations thereunder.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondent's operation in business as a dealer under the act without a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as set forth in Finding of Fact 3, constitutes a willful violation of section 312 (a) of the act and sections 201.29 and 201.30 of the regulations issued thereunder (9 CFR 201.29 and 201.30). See e.g. In re Bennie L. Pence 24 A.D. 311 (1965). Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from such violation and be suspended as a registrant under the act until he fully complies with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations issued thereunder, as recommended by complainant.