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
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 wilfull..
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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