This court must uphold the findings of the Food and Nutrition Service unless the store owner can prove that the agency's determination is factually incorrect. Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 474-75 (5th Cir. 1982); Goodman v. United States, 518 F.2d 505, 511 (5th Cir. 1975); Redmond v. United States, 507 F.2d 1007, 1011-12 (5th Cir. 1975). A review of an administrative decision such as this suspension of food stamp redemption involves two questions: (1) did the violation occur? and (2) is the penalty valid? Bruno's v. United States, 624 F.2d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1980).

" Id. The Fifth Circuit has interpreted § 2023 as authorizing review of both "the propriety of the sanction as well as the question of whether the violations actually took place." Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982). Because the Razzaks concede the violations occurred, the only question presented here is whether the sanction imposed by FNS is valid. "To be 'valid,' a sanction must not be arbitrary and capricious, and a sanction is arbitrary and capricious if it is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.

The court may review not only the determination that a violation took place but also the propriety of the sanction imposed. Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982). "To be 'valid,' a sanction must not be arbitrary and capricious, and a sanction is arbitrary and capricious if it is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact."

The district court's standard of review of a sanction is limited to whether the sanction was arbitrary and capricious. "[A] sanction is arbitrary and capricious if it is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact." Goodman v. United States, 518 F.2d 505, 511 (5th Cir. 1975) (quoting Cross v. United States, 512 F.2d 1212, 1218 (4th Cir. 1975) (en banc); see also Hough v. United States Dep't of Agric., 707 F.2d 866, 868-69 (5th Cir. 1983); Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982). If an agency action adheres to its internal guidelines, it is not arbitrary and capricious. Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473-74 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Bruno's, Inc. v. United States, 624 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1980).

Goodman, supra, 518 F.2d at 511 (quoting Cross v. United States, 512 F.2d 1212, 1218 (4th Cir. 1975) (en banc)) (establishing the standard of review). See also Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982) (implicit holding that Goodman survives the amendments made by the Food Stamp Act of 1977). Under section 13 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-525, § 13, 78 Stat. 703, 707-08 (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2022 and superseded in 1977), courts in this circuit unquestionably had the power to review the FNS's disqualification penalties.

A court "may review not only the determination that a violation took place, but also the propriety of the sanction imposed." Aliraj Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., Civ. No. SA-12-CV-00389-DAE, 2012 WL 690530, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2013), citing Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982). A sanction is valid if it is not arbitrary and capricious, i.e., if it is warranted in law or justified in facts.

The court may review not only the determination that a violation took place but also the propriety of the sanction imposed. Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982). "To be 'valid,' a sanction must not be arbitrary and capricious, and a sanction is arbitrary and capricious if it is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact."

The district court disregarded the Instruction, holding that it purported to amend the regulation. Other courts have held the Instruction, or substantially similar versions of it, controlling in cases where FNS sanctions were challenged. See, e.g., Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 474 (5th Cir. 1982); Lawrence v. United States, 693 F.2d 274, 277 (2d Cir. 1982). We find the Instruction a reasonable interpretation of the regulation.

See Lawrence v. United States, 693 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1982); Nowicki v. United States, 536 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1092, 97 S.Ct. 1103, 51 L.Ed.2d 537 (1977). Compare Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1982). FNS Instructions 744-9 IV B, dealing with the assignment of a one-year disqualification, indicates that the penalty should be assessed "if any of the following situations is present:"

Though noting that the legislative history of the 1977 amendment to the Food Stamp Act casts doubt on a court's power to review the length of a disqualification sanction, he concedes that we are bound by post-1977 decisions of this court that have reviewed the severity of disqualification sanctions under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. See Otto v. Block, 693 F.2d 472, 473 (5th Cir. 1982); Bruno's, Inc. v. United States, 624 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1980). Instead, he argues that Otto and Bruno's say nothing about a court's power to review the agency's choice between a disqualification sanction and a civil penalty and that Congress has committed this choice to the agency.