Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Parr v. AGRI, 00-60844 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-60844 Visitors: 89
Filed: Sep. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-60844 _ REGINALD DWIGHT PARR Petitioner v. US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondents _ Petition for Review of an Order of the of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (99-0022) _ September 5, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture that petitioner Reginald Dwight Parr wilful
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 00-60844
                       _____________________


          REGINALD DWIGHT PARR

                                 Petitioner
          v.

          US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                 Respondents

_________________________________________________________________

          Petition for Review of an Order of the of the
                  U.S. Department of Agriculture
                             (99-0022)
_________________________________________________________________
                         September 5, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of

the Secretary of Agriculture that petitioner Reginald Dwight Parr

wilfully violated the Animal Welfare Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§

2131-2159, and the regulations and standards issued thereunder,

9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142, eight times between April 9, 1997 and

November 18, 1998.   Further, we agree with the Secretary that

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
such regulations and standards gave Parr sufficient notice for

him to comply with the requirements of the Act.   Accordingly, we

DENY Parr’s petition for review and AFFIRM the decision of the

Secretary.




                                2

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