Opinion
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2003.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Raisin producer sought judicial review of decision of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that resulted in producer being barred from USDA inspection services for one year. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony W. Ishii, J., 221 F.Supp.2d 1209, entered summary judgment in favor of USDA, and producer appealed. The Court of Appeals held that USDA's interpretation of debarment regulation, which allows debarment from USDA inspection services for "any misrepresentation or deceptive or fraudulent practice or act" committed in connection with submission of agricultural samples for inspection, as encompassing both innocent and willful misrepresentation was both rational and consistent with the purpose of the regulation.
Affirmed.
Page 707.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.
Before HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BREYER, District Judge.
Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The decision of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to debar American Raisin Packers ("American Raisin") for the unintentional misrepresentation of samples submitted for inspection was reasonable. The USDA's interpretation of 7 C.F.R. § 52.54(a)(1)(ii) as encompassing both innocent and willful misrepresentation was both rational and consistent with the purpose of the regulation. See Alhambra Hosp. v. Thompson, 259 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.2001).
American Raisin's contention that 7 U.S.C. § 1622(h) prohibits debarment for innocent or negligent misconduct is unavailing. Section 1622(h) provides ample authority for the promulgation of Section 52.54, in addition to establishing penalties for other abuses. American Raisin's claim that 5 U.S.C. § 558 requires that a party be given an opportunity to cure its misrepresentation before it is debarred also fails because Section 558 applies only to the revocation of a license and is not otherwise applicable to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment grant to USDA.
AFFIRMED.