penalty should be reduced and/or paid in installments; and Whereas, by document filed May 11, 1994, Complainant indicated that Respondent has provided evidence indicating an inability to pay the $375.00 assessed civil penalty; Now, therefore, upon consideration of all matters pertinent hereto, the Decision and Order issued February 17, 1994, is amended as follows: Order The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of one hundred and seventy-five dollars ($175.00) which shall be payable to the "Treasurer of the United States" by certified check or money order. The Respondent shall make payments of $25.00 each month for seven (7) consecutive months. The Respondent's initial payment will be due within thirty (30) days from the date this amended Order is received by the Respondent. If the Respondent is late in making or misses any payment, then all remaining payments become immediately due and payable in full. All payments shall be forwarded to: United States Department of Agriculture APHIS Field Servicing Office Accounting Section P.O. Box 3334 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403. The Respondent shall indicate on the certified check or money order that the payment is in reference to P.Q. Docket No. 93-97. [This Amended Order became final July 6, 1994.-Editor] In re: ALBERTO GARCIA and ALBERINO YAIONE. P.Q. Docket No. 91-65. Dismissal of Complaint against Alberino Yaione filed July 18, 1994. Cynthia Koch, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Victor W. Palmer, Chief Administrative Law Judge. FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the complaint against Alberino Yaione is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 53 Agric. Dec. 1473 In re: VERONICA ANDERSON. P.Q. Docket No. 93-110. Order of Dismissal filed August 16, 1994. Glenn Nadaner, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to Complainant's Motion therefor, filed this date, the Complaint in the above-entitled cause is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED. Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties. In re: TOWER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. P.Q. Docket No. 91-6. Order Dismissing Amended Complaint filed September 16, 1994. Jeffrey D. Kirmsse, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Edwin S. Bernstein, Administrative Law Judge. Complainant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in this matter is granted. It is ordered that the Amended Complaint filed herein on March 30, 1994, be dismissed. In re: NOEL YUGS. P.Q. Docket No. 93-34. Dismissal of Complaint filed October 14, 1994. Lance T. Mason, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Victor W. Palmer, Chief Administrative Law Judge. The complaint in this case is dismissed without prejudice. 1474 DEFAULT DECISIONS AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT In re: RAY ARMSTRONG. AMAA Docket No. 92-3. Decision and Order filed April 20, 1994. Failure to file an answer - Handler - Failure to handle avocados in accordance with terms and conditions of the order - Handling avocados without obtaining mandatory inspection - Failure to submit weekly reports to avocado administrative committee - Civil penalty - Cease and desist order. Sharlene A. Deskins, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Victor W. Palmer, Chief Administrative Law Judge. This proceeding was instituted under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 ("Act"), (7 U.S.C. §§ 601-674), by a complaint filed by the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that the respondent Ray Armstrong violated the Act. Copies of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130- 1.151, were served on said respondent by the Hearing Clerk by certified mail on or about December 20, 1991 and March 31, 1992. The Complainant received notification from the Office of the Hearing Clerk that the complaint had been served on or about June 4, 1993. The Respondent was informed in the accompanying letter of service that an answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation. Said respondent has failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by respondent's failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact. This decision and order, therefore, is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.139. 53 Agric. Dec. 1474 Findings of Fact 1. Ray Armstrong, doing business as Sun Ray Produce, hereafter referred to as respondent, is an individual whose business address is 19361 S.W. 186th Street, Miami, Florida 33187. 2. The respondent, at all times material herein, was operating as a "handler" of avocados as defined in the order pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 915.9. 3. The respondent from September 1, 1987, to December 2, 1987, failed to handle avocados grown in South Florida in accordance with the terms and conditions of the order, such failure comprised at least thirty-six violations of 7 C.F.R. § 915.61. 4. The respondent from December 22, 1987, to January 28, 1988, handled avocados grown in South Florida without obtaining mandatory inspection by the Federal-State Inspection Service thereby violating 7 C.F.R. § 915.54 thirteen times. 5. The respondent from July 3 to December 3, 1988, handled avocados without submitting weekly reports to the Avocado Administrative Committee thereby violating 7 C.F.R. § 915.150 nineteen times. Conclusions 1. The Secretary of Agriculture has jurisdiction in this matter. 2. By reason of the facts set forth in the Findings of Fact above, said respondent violated Act and the regulations thereunder (7 C.F.R. §§ 915.1 915.332). 3. The following Order is authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances. Order 1. Respondent Ray Armstrong is assessed a civil penalty of $8,000 to be paid by certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of the United States. 2. Respondent Ray Armstrong, shall comply with each and every provision applicable to a handler of avocados in the Order. Respondent shall cease and desist from: a. failing to handle avocados in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Order. b. failing to handle avocados without obtaining mandatory inspection by the Federal-State Inspection Service. c. failing to submit weekly reports to the Avocado Administrative Committee. The provisions of this order shall become effective on the first day after this decision becomes final. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, this decision becomes final without further proceedings 35 days after service as provided in section 1.142 and 1.145 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.142 and 1.145. Copies of this decision shall be served upon the parties. In re: TORRES DATE PACKING. AMAA Docket No. 94-4. Decision and Order filed October 5, 1994. Failure to file answer - Violation of marketing order - Failure to pay assessment - Civil penalty. Colleen A. Carroll, for Complainant. Respondent. Pro se. Decision and Order issued by James W. Hunt, Administrative Law Judge. The Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service instituted this proceeding under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (the "Act"), by filing a complaint alleging that respondent Torres Date Packing willfully violated the Marketing Order for Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, California, 7 C.F.R. §§ 987.1-987.84 (the "Marketing Order"), issued pursuant to the Act. The Hearing Clerk served on the respondent, by certified mail, copies of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. § 1.130 et seq. (the "Rules of Practice"). The Hearing Clerk, in the accompanying letter of service, informed the respondent that it should file an answer to the complaint pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that the failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation. The respondent has failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice. The material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by reason of the respondent's failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact. This decision and order is issued pursuant to section |