Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Glenn A. Froeman v. Federal Highway Administration, Administrator United States of America, 92-1114 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-1114 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jun. 04, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1442 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Glenn A. FROEMAN, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, Administrator; United States of America Respondents. No. 92-1114. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: May 12, 1992 Decided: June 4, 1992 On P
More

966 F.2d 1442

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Glenn A. FROEMAN, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, Administrator; United
States of America Respondents.

No. 92-1114.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 12, 1992
Decided: June 4, 1992

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Transportation.

Glenn A. Froeman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Eric Alan Kuwana, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

D.O.T.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Glenn A. Froeman appeals from a final decision of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) denying his petition for rulemaking in which he seeks to amend the regulations governing maximum "hours of service" applicable to interstate truck drivers. Our review of the FHWA's record discloses that the FHWA's denial of rulemaking was not arbitrary or capricious and that this appeal is without merit. Therefore, we affirm the FHWA's final order. In re Froeman, No. 9106 (FHWA Dec. 11, 1991). 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.*

AFFIRMED

*

In light of our decision, Froeman's Motion for Relief Pending Review is denied

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer