! 56 Agric. Dec. 1654 I find no basis upon which to disturb the Order Lifting Stay Order issued May 19, 1997, and Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay Order is therefore denied. In re Cecil Jordan, 56 Agric. Dec., slip op. at 4-5 (June 13, 1997) (Order on On July 15, 1997, Respondent filed Respondent's Motion for Stay requesting that I stay the May 19, 1997, Order Lifting Stay, In re Cecil Jordan, supra (May 19, 1997) (Order Lifting Stay Order), and the June 13, 1997, Order on Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay, In re Cecil Jordan, supra (June 13, 1997) (Order on Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay Order), pending judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondent states: Respondent desires to seek review of the Judicial Officer's decision in the United States [d]istrict [c]ourt on the basis that the Judicial Officer's decisions regarding the calculation of time served by Respondent in regards to the disqualification period were arbitrary and capricious. There are numerous events which point to the fact that Respondent believed in good faith that she was under suspension during the various periods of time outlined above. Respondent's Motion for Stay at 2. On July 15, 1997, Complainant filed Complainant's Response to Respondent's July 15, Motion for Stay, and on July 16, 1997, the case was referred to the Judicial Officer for a ruling on Respondent's Motion for Stay filed July 15, 1997. The Administrative Procedure Act provides: § 705. Relief pending review When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review. On such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the reviewing court, including the court to which a case may be taken on appeal from or on application for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing court, may issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 705. Respondent has exhausted avenues for judicial review of this administrative proceeding. In re Cecil Jordan (Decision as to Sheryl Crawford), 52 Agric. Dec. 1214 (1993), aff'd, 50 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 88 (1995). I have fully considered and addressed Respondent's belief that she was disqualified during the pendency of judicial review of the administrative proceeding. In re Cecil Jordan, supra (May 19, 1997) (Order Lifting Stay Order); In re Cecil Jordan, supra (June 13, 1997) (Order on Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay Order). Under these circumstances, I do not find that justice requires that I disturb the Order Lifting Stay issued May 19, 1997, based upon Respondent's "desire to seek judicial review" of In re Cecil Jordan, supra (May 19, 1997) (Order Lifting Stay Order), and In re Cecil Jordan, supra (June 13, 1997) (Order on Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay Order). For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's July 15, 1997, Motion for Stay is denied. In re: WINSTON T. GROOVER and MARCELLA SMITH. HPA Docket No. 95-0004. Dismissal of Complaint as to Marcella Smith filed November 18, 1997. Robert Ertman, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Dismissal issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to Complainant's Motion therefor, filed October 20, 1997, the Complaint filed herein is dismissed as to Respondent Marcella Smith. The Caption of the case henceforth shall be "Winston T. Groover, Respondent." Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties. 56 Agric. Dec. 1659 In re: PIERCE B. TIDWELL, JR. d/b/a TIDWELL NURSERIES. Order of Dismissal and Cancellation of Hearing filed August 7, 1997. Scott Safian, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by James W. Hunt, Administrative Law Judge. Complainant's August 4, 1997, motion to dismiss is granted. The Complaint filed herein on December 21, 1995, is dismissed without prejudice. The hearing scheduled for August 12, 1997, in Atlanta, Georgia, is canceled. In re: E. LOTSPEICH. P.Q. Docket No. 97-0012. Order of Dismissal filed August 20, 1997. Howard Levine, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Victor W. Palmer Chief Administrative Law Judge. FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and at the request of the Complainant this case is DISMISSED. In re: CAROL ROBINSON. P.Q. Docket No. 97-0011. Order Dismissing Complaint filed August 28, 1997. James D. Holt, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Edwin S. Bernstein, Administrative Law Judge. Complainant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted. It is ordered that the Complaint filed herein on April 23, 1997, be dismissed. In re: ADELA ANCHANTE de REYES. P.Q. Docket No. 98-0003. Order of Dismissal filed December 12, 1997. Susan C. Golabek, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by Victor W. Palmer Chief Administrative Law Judge. For Good Cause Shown and upon the Motion of the Complainant, this case is hereby dismissed. 56 Agric. Dec. 1661 DEFAULT DECISIONS AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT In re: CUSTOM RAISIN PACKING, INC., a NEVADA CORPORATION aka CUSTOM RAISIN PACKING CO., and CUSTOM INC., and JOHN C. BOWERSOX, an individual. AMAA Docket No. 97-0002. Decision and Order filed May 15, 1997. Failure to file an answer - Failure to hold raisins in reserve - Failure to deliver raisins to the RAC Failure to file accurate and timely reports to RAC - Shipment of raisins without inspection Failure to pay assessments - Civil Penalty - Cease and Desist Order. Colleen A. Carroll, for Complainant. Respondents, 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, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (the “Act”), the Marketing Order for Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California, 7 C.F.R. §§ 989.1-989.95 (the "Order"), and the Rules and Regulations issued pursuant to the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 989.102-989.801 (the "Regulations"), by a complaint filed by the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that respondents Custom Raisin Packing, Inc., a Nevada corporation (also known as Custom Raisin Packing Co. and Custom, Inc.), and John C. Bowersox, an individual, willfully violated the Order, and the Regulations. The Hearing Clerk served on the respondents, by mail, copies of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act (7 C.F.R. §§ 1.1301.151). The respondents were 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. The respondents sought, and were granted an extension of time within which to file their answer. The respondents have failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, or at all, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by 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 1.139 of the Rules of Practice. |