UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREBEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTUREIn re:)A.Q. Docket No. 03-0002)Vega Nunez,))Respondent)
Order Denying Late AppealPROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], instituted this disciplinaryadministrative proceeding by filing a “Complaint” on November 7, 2002. Complainantinstituted the proceeding under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C.A. §§8301-8320 (West Supp. 2004)); regulations issued under the Animal Health ProtectionAct (9 C.F.R. pt. 94) [hereinafter the Regulations]; and the Rules of Practice GoverningFormal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes(7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-.151 (2002)) [hereinafter the Rules of Practice].Complainant alleges that on or about January 17, 2001, Vega Nunez [hereinafter Respondent] imported approximately 4 pounds of meat sausage from Germany into theUnited States at Chicago, Illinois, in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 94.11(a), (b), and (c) because
2
1
United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipt for Article Number 70010360 0000 0304 2905.
2
United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipt for Article Number 70010360 0000 0304 7849.the meat product did not comply with the requirements necessary for such meat to beimported into the United States (Compl. ¶ II).The Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the Complaint, the Rules of Practice,and a service letter on November 14, 2002.
1
Respondent filed an answer to theComplaint on December 9, 2002.On March 23, 2004, in accordance with section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice(7 C.F.R. § 1.139 (2002)), Complainant filed a “Motion for Adoption of ProposedDefault Decision and Order” and a “Proposed Default Decision and Order.” The HearingClerk served Respondent with Complainant’s Motion for Adoption of Proposed DefaultDecision and Order and Complainant’s Proposed Default Decision and Order and aservice letter on April 3, 2004.
2
On April 13, 2004, Respondent filed objections toComplainant’s Motion for Adoption of Proposed Default Decision and Order andComplainant’s Proposed Default Decision and Order.On May 10, 2004, pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. §1.139 (2002)), Administrative Law Judge Jill S. Clifton [hereinafter the ALJ] issued a“Decision and Order by Reason of Admission of Facts”: (1) concluding that Respondentviolated the Animal Health Protection Act and the Regulations, as alleged in the
3
3
United States Postal Service Domestic Return Receipt for Article Number 70001670 0003 5453 1952.
4
See note 3.Complaint; and (2) assessing Respondent a $50 civil penalty (Decision and Order byReason of Admission of Facts at 4).On May 24, 2004, the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the ALJ’s Decisionand Order by Reason of Admission of Facts.
3
On June 28, 2004, Respondent appealed tothe Judicial Officer. Complainant failed to file a response to Respondent’s appeal petition, and on September 2, 2004, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to theJudicial Officer for consideration and decision.
CONCLUSION BY THE JUDICIAL OFFICER
The record establishes that the Hearing Clerk served Respondent with the ALJ’sDecision and Order by Reason of Admission of Facts on May 24, 2004.
4
Section1.145(a) of the Rules of Practice provides that an administrative law judge’s decisionmust be appealed to the Judicial Officer within 30 days after service, as follows:
§ 1.145 Appeal to Judicial Officer.
(a)
Filing of petition
. Within 30 days after receiving service of theJudge’s decision, a party who disagrees with the decision, or any partthereof, or any ruling by the Judge or any alleged deprivation of rights, mayappeal such decision to the Judicial Officer by filing an appeal petition withthe Hearing Clerk.7 C.F.R. § 1.145(a) (2002).
of 00
Agriculture Law: nunez
969 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/27/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment