The Fight for Clearer Egg Carton Labels: Eggsactly What You d Expect. A Brief Look at the Compassion Over Killing v. FDA Decisions
|
|
- Gyles Blair
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Fight for Clearer Egg Carton Labels: Eggsactly What You d Expect I. Introduction A Brief Look at the Compassion Over Killing v. FDA Decisions Maureen Moody Student Fellow Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies If you picked up an egg carton displaying pictures of un-caged hens milling around and the phrases all natural or animal friendly, you might think you were purchasing eggs hatched by cage-free hens. The animal rights groups Compassion Over Killing and Animal Legal Defense Fund certainly think customers make that assumption, and between 2006 and 2013, these groups along with individual egg consumers filed rulemaking petitions with three federal agencies asking them to adopt regulations that would require egg producers to clearly label the method in which the eggs were produced. The agencies declined to adopt new regulations to clarify egg carton labels and the Plaintiff-animal rights groups filed suit. Ultimately, both the U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit Appellate Court determined that the agencies rejection of the petitions was proper under their highly deferential standard of review. As a result, egg producers were not forced to disclose on their packaging their chosen method of egg production. II. The Petitions Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts must uphold a federal agency s decision as long as it is rational, based on consideration of the relevant factors and within the scope of the authority delegated to the agency by statute. 1 Applying this standard, the U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit Appellate Court in Compassion Over Killing v. FDA upheld decisions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the 1 Compassion Over Killing v. Food and Drug Administration, 2014 WL , (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). 1
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture s Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS ) and Agricultural Marketing Service ( AMS ) to deny Plaintiffs petition for rulemaking that would require egg producers to use labels that identify whether their eggs come from cage-free hens. Plaintiffs Petition to the FDA Plaintiffs petition to the FDA contended that 1) eggs from caged hens are nutritionally inferior to eggs from pastured hens; 2) eggs from caged hens have a greater risk of salmonella contamination; 3) consumers care about production methods and rely on egg carton labeling to make purchasing decisions; and 4) many egg producers use labeling that misleads consumers about whether the eggs are cage-free. 2 Pursuant to the FDA s administrative duties under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FDCA ), which prohibits the sale of misbranded food, Plaintiffs requested the FDA to promulgate new regulations, or revise existing ones, to require that all eggs be labeled as free range, cage free, or eggs from caged hens to reflect the conditions in which the hens were kept during egg production. 3 The FDA denied the Plaintiffs petition for three reasons. First, the agency asserted it did not have authorization under the FDCA to regulate egg labeling based solely on consumer interest in animal welfare, as opposed to safety or nutrition-related reasons. Second, it found Plaintiffs evidence insufficient to establish material differences in nutritional value and food safety between free range or cage free eggs and eggs from caged hens. Lastly, the FDA determined, notwithstanding the issues above, that Plaintiffs proposed rulemaking was not a priority given the agency s other priorities and limited resources. 4 Plaintiff s Petition to the FTC 2 Compassion Over Killing v. Food and Drug Administration, 2014 WL , * 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014). 3 Id. 4 Id. 2
3 Plaintiffs petition requested the FTC to use its authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTCA ) to initiate rulemaking to address consumer deception stemming from egg producers labeling practices. 5 The FTC is authorized under the FTCA to promulgate rules with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce when it has reason to believe that the unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent. 6 The FTC determined that Plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence showing consumers were deceived by current labeling practices, that the terms all natural and animal friendly mislead consumers into thinking eggs are produced without the use of cages, or that any misleading practice of the egg producer industry was prevalent. 7 Moreover, the FTC stated its preference to address this type of deceptive practice through individual enforcement actions rather than prescribing a broadly applicable rule. 8 Plaintiffs Petition to the AMS The Agricultural Marketing Act ( AMA ) gives the AMS authority through the Department of Agriculture to: To inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality, quantity, and condition of agricultural products when shipped or received in interstate commerce, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe,... to the end that agricultural products may be marketed to the best advantage, that trading may be facilitated, and that consumers may be able to obtain the quality product which they desire. 7 U.S.C. 1622(h)(1). The Plaintiffs petition requested the AMS to use its authority pursuant to the AMA to issue regulations mandating that eggs sold for retail have labels identifying the 5 Id. at *3. 6 Id. (citing Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(A); (b)(3)). 7 Id. 8 Id. 3
4 method of production for those eggs. 9 Because the AMS s authority is expressly limited by the fact that no person shall be required to use the service authorized by the subsection above, however, the AMS denied Plaintiffs petition for lack of authority to force egg producers to label their cartons in a particular way. 10 Plaintiffs Petition to the FSIS Using the Egg Products Inspection Act ( EPIA ) as its authority, Plaintiffs petition to the FSIS requested the agency to promulgate rules mandating that egg producers use labels designating the method by which the eggs were produced. 11 The agency denied Plaintiffs petition for lack of authority under the EPIA. While the EPIA gives the agency power over the regulation of egg products, such as dried, frozen, or liquid eggs, it does not afford the same authority over shell eggs, which fall into a separate category. 12 Moreover, the statute provides only limited authorization for regulating false or misleading of labeling of shell eggs. 13 III. U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit Decisions After each federal agency denied Plaintiffs petitions, Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the agencies had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing their rulemaking petitions. The District Court ruled that each federal agency had reasonably denied Plaintiffs request and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court s judgment. The District Court upheld the agencies decisions to deny Plaintiffs petitions for rulemaking on two primary grounds. First, because agencies have broad discretion to choose 9 Id. at *4. 10 Id. at *5. 11 Id. at *5. 12 Id. at *5; See also 21 U.S.C. 1033(f), (g). 13 Id. at *5. 4
5 how to use their limited resources and personnel to carry out their responsibilities 14 and, second, because agencies cannot mandate adherence to regulatory requirements outside their statutory authority. The FDA determined that Plaintiffs requested rulemaking would not be the best use of the agency s limited resources, given its other competing priorities. Because an agency s refusal to promulgate a rule is susceptible only to extremely limited and highly deferential judicial review, the Court concluded that the FDA s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and upheld the decision. 15 Similarly, the FTC determined that Plaintiffs concerns could best be addressed through individual enforcement actions, rather than the rulemaking process. Once again, the District Court upheld the denial of Plaintiffs petition as neither arbitrary nor capricious because the agency, after considering the merits of the petition, reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the petition. 16 With regard to the AMS s and FSIS s decisions to deny Plaintiffs petitions, the District Court found that the agencies had correctly concluded they lacked authority to promulgate the requested rules, and therefore, the agencies determinations were neither arbitrary nor capricious. 17 The Ninth Circuit reviewed the final agency decisions de novo and, adopting the same reasoning and legal conclusions as the lower court, affirmed the District Court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Ninth Circuit, however, issued a veiled warning to federal agencies in its opinion. The Court noted that while the judicial review under the APA is deferential, it does not provide an immediate stamp of approval in all matters involving the 14 Id. at *2 (citing Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 527 (2007)). 15 Id. at *2. 16 Id. at *4 (citing 15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)). 17 Id. at *5-6. 5
6 allocation of agency resources. 18 To that end, the Court chastised the FDA for barely meeting its burden of explaining the basis of its decision to deny Plaintiffs petition for rulemaking, and noted that the FDA could have better addressed Plaintiffs evidence of misleading representations that appear on egg cartons to demonstrate that the agency fully appreciated one of the primary bases for Plaintiffs rulemaking petition. 19 IV. What Does this Mean for Consumer Groups? Given the highly deferential standard of review for final federal agency decisions, the opinions of the U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit in this case are unsurprising. So long as agencies indicate they have considered a petition for rulemaking, and articulate a reasonable justification for not exercising their discretion to initiate said rulemaking, courts will likely continue to uphold agency decisions. Therefore, Compassion Over Killing v. FDA, rather than setting new precedent, offers a lesson to consumer groups: don t put all your eggs in one basket. The rulemaking process is long, discretionary, and affords highly deferential treatment in judicial review. Any one of these factors could be enough to derail an effort to effect rule changes, but together, they create an uphill battle that can be almost impossible for consumer groups to win. Given these challenges, it may be more beneficial for consumer groups to lobby Congress, engage in state level and grassroots efforts, or take up a combination of these or other actions to achieve their desired changes. Animal welfare groups and consumers concerned about the egg production process, for example, scored a victory in California when the state approved a ballot initiative in 2008 requiring that all egg cages in the state be large enough for hens to stand 18 Compassion Over Killing v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 849 F.3d 849, 857 (2017). 19 Id. 6
7 up, turn around, and spread their limbs. 20 While these group s efforts in the Compassion Over Killing case to attempt to mandate clearer egg carton labels to make it easier for conscientious consumers to buy truly animal-friendly eggs, failed, the ballot initiative in California drives home the point that consumers can and should examine alternate directions from which to advance their advocacy goals. That, at its core, is the lesson to be learned from Compassion Over Killing v. FDA. Industry players should not, however, interpret this case as tacit approval of their labeling practices. As the FTC noted in its decision on the rulemaking petition, it (and other agencies) can strike down deceptive and misleading practices through individual enforcement actions. While the egg industry does not yet have a mandatory labeling rule, egg producers should be wary of the message their labels are sending egg consumers. 20 See Karin Brulliard, How eggs became a victory for the animal welfare movement, Washington Post (Aug. 6, 2016), 7
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 99-1034 In the Supreme Court of the United States CENTURY CLINIC, INC. AND KATRINA TANG, PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED DEC 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CYNTHIA CARDARELLI PAINTER, individually and on behalf of other members
More informationFood Litigation & POM Wonderful, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.
Food Litigation & POM Wonderful, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Melissa W. Wolchansky Partner Halunen & Associates MSBA Section of Food, Drug & Device Law Thursday, August 7, 2014 Regulatory Framework Food, Drug,
More informationMichael B. Wigmore Direct Phone: Direct Fax: January 14, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY
Michael B. Wigmore Direct Phone: 202.373.6792 Direct Fax: 202.373.6001 michael.wigmore@bingham.com VIA HAND DELIVERY Jeffrey N. Lüthi, Clerk of the Panel Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Thurgood
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C - PJH 0 v. ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 10, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court PAULA PUCKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES
More informationNatural Resources Defense Council v. Food and Drug Administration: Is the Standard of Review "Unlawfully Withheld" or "Arbitrary and
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement Article 2 7-31-2013 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Food and Drug Administration: Is the Standard of Review
More informationCase 1:13-cv JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:13-cv-21525-JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 LESLIE REILLY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationAppellate Court Affirms Prison Sentences in DeCoster Egg Case
Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com MEMORANDUM From: Joseph A. Levitt Douglas A. Fellman Cate Stetson
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner-Appellant, v. No H. A. LEDEZMA, Warden,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 30, 2011 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORTINO LICON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 10-6166
More informationPreemption in Nonprescription Drug Cases
drug and medical device Over the Counter and Under the Radar By James F. Rogers, Julie A. Flaming and Jane T. Davis Preemption in Nonprescription Drug Cases Although it must be considered on a case-by-case
More informationH. R SEC ENHANCING TRACKING AND TRACING OF FOOD AND RECORDKEEPING.
H. R. 2751 46 SEC. 204. ENHANCING TRACKING AND TRACING OF FOOD AND RECORDKEEPING. (a) PILOT PROJECTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
More informationThe Saskatchewan Egg Regulations
1 The Saskatchewan Egg Regulations Repealed by Chapter A-20.2 Reg 13 (effective April 1, 2010). Formerly Saskatchewan Regulations 269/78 (effective August 1, 1978) as amended by Saskatchewan Regulations
More informationTop 10 Food And Drug Product Law Developments For By Anand Agneshwar and Paige Sharpe Arnold & Porter LLP
Published by Appellate Law360, California Law 360, Food & Beverage Law360, Life Sciences Law360, New Jersey Law360, New York Law360, Product Liability Law360, and Public Policy Law360 on January 8, 2016.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ORDER
Case 3:15-cv-01892-CCC Document 36 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MILAGROS QUIÑONES-GONZALEZ, individually on her own behalf and others similarly
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION
Islam v. Department of Homeland Security et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MOHAMMAD SHER ISLAM, v. Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
More informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.
More informationImportant Regulatory Developments: FDA's Reportable Food Registry and Other Reporting Obligations
Important Regulatory Developments: FDA's Reportable Food Registry and Other Reporting Obligations Reportable Food Registry John F. Lemker Partner Chicago, IL +1.312.807.4413 john.lemker@klgates.com Establishment
More informationARTICLE 7A Dairy Products
1 NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY ARTICLE 7A Dairy Products Section 25-7A-1 25-7A-2 25-7A-3 25-7A-4 25-7A-5 25-7A-6 25-7A-7 25-7A-8 25-7A-9 25-7A-10 25-7A-11 25-7A-12 25-7A-13 25-7A-14 25-7A-15 25-7A-16 25-7A-17
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-761 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States POM WONDERFUL LLC, v. Petitioner, THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1038 Document #1666639 Filed: 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) CONSUMERS FOR AUTO RELIABILITY
More informationInterpreting Appropriate and Necessary Reasonably under the Clean Air Act: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 16 9-15-2017 Interpreting Appropriate and Necessary Reasonably under the Clean Air Act: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency Maribeth Hunsinger Follow
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 06-340, 06-549 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, et al., Petitioners, v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Respondents. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
More informationCase5:13-cv BLF Document82 Filed06/05/15 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-00-BLF Document Filed0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 SUSAN LEONHART, Plaintiff, v. NATURE S PATH FOODS, INC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-blf
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States v. Kevin Brewer Doc. 802508136 United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-1261 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin Lamont Brewer
More informationWASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2021 COMMENTS of WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION to the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Concerning DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY AND FDA STAFF: DECIDING
More informationNOTE CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT (2007).
NOTE CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT. 2518 (2007). Malori Dahmen* I. Introduction... 703 II. Overview of Statutory
More informationTITLE III--IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED FOOD
TITLE III--IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED FOOD SEC. 301. FOREIGN SUPPLIER VERIFICATION PROGRAM. (a) In General.--Chapter VIII (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: "SEC.
More informationLEGAL MEMORANDUM. Vermont Lawsuit a Test Case for GMO-Labeling Laws and the First Amendment. Key Points. Andrew Kloster
LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 166 Vermont Lawsuit a Test Case for GMO-Labeling Laws and the First Amendment Andrew Kloster Abstract Vermont s Act 120, scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2016, is the country
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LINDA RUBENSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/sonar/sonar.asp STATE OF MINNESOTA
More informationHELFGOTT & KARAS, P.C., Plaintiff, - v - BRUCE A. LEHMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, and COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS, Defendant.
Abstract Applicant made an error in the filing of his Demand. The District Court found that the applicant should have discovered the mistake at an early stage and therefore affirmed the decision of the
More informationCase 5:10-cv MWB Document 62 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION
Case 5:10-cv-04018-MWB Document 62 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION FARM-TO-CONSUMER LEGAL ) DEFENSE FUND, et al., ) )
More informationCase 1:10-cv SEH Document 49 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:10-cv-00128-SEH Document 49 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 3 FILED DEC 042013 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cieri
More informationFood Recalls and Other FDA Administrative Enforcement Actions
Food Recalls and Other FDA Administrative Enforcement Actions Emily M. Lanza Legislative Attorney November 20, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43794 Summary The U.S. Food and Drug
More information21 USC 350h. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER 9 - FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT SUBCHAPTER IV - FOOD 350h. Standards for produce safety (a) Proposed rulemaking (A) Rulemaking Not later than 1 year after January
More informationThe Federal Preemption Battle Has Just Begun
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Federal Preemption Battle Has Just Begun
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3723 Organization for Competitive Markets, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioners v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllrespondents
More information800 F.3d 1143 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
800 F.3d 1143 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. W. Scott HARKONEN, M.D., Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; United States Office of Management and Budget, Defendants
More informationSubpart K Administrative Detention of Food for Human or Animal Consumption. Food and Drug Administration, HHS 1.379
Food and Drug Administration, HHS 1.379 (c) The failure of any person to make records or other information available to FDA as required by section 414 or 704(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 19-cv HSG 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PG&E CORPORATION, et al., Case No. -cv-00-hsg 0 v. Plaintiffs, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW
More informationThis matter comes before the Court pursuant to Motion for Summary Judgment by
Raj and Company v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RAJ AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, Case No. C-RSM v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted: May 4, 2018 Decided: December 11, 2018) Docket No.
-0 0 0 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Submitted: May, 0 Decided: December, 0) Docket No. 0 KRISTEN MANTIKAS, KRISTIN BURNS, and LINDA CASTLE, individually and
More information2 Noerr-Pennington Rulings Affirm Narrow Scope Of Immunity
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 2 Noerr-Pennington Rulings Affirm Narrow
More informationA Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC
JULY 2008, RELEASE TWO A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC Layne Kruse and Amy Garzon Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. A Short Guide to the Prosecution
More informationCase 1:12-cv BAH Document 28 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-02039-BAH Document 28 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STAND UP FOR CALIFORNIA!, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02039-BAH
More informationCase 1:11-cv PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-01278-PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) SIERRA CLUB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1278 (PLF) ) LISA P.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 4:14cv621-RH/CAS
Case 4:14-cv-00621-RH-CAS Document 60 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 8 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION OCHEESEE CREAMERY, LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ORDER
Case 2:07-cv-00642-JPS Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 17 Document 96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 07-CV-642 SCHWARZ
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. GLR MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 1:17-cv-01253-GLR Document 46 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BLUE WATER BALTIMORE, INC., et al., : Plaintiffs, : v. : Civil Action No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Harrisburg Division. Civil Action No.
Case 1:18-cv-00738-YK Document 1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg Division SOUTH MOUNTAIN CREAMERY, LLC, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationPENDING LEGISLATION REGULATING PATENT INFRINGEMENT SETTLEMENTS
PENDING LEGISLATION REGULATING PATENT INFRINGEMENT SETTLEMENTS By Edward W. Correia* A number of bills have been introduced in the United States Congress this year that are intended to eliminate perceived
More informationCase 3:06-cv CDL Document 130 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00016-CDL Document 130 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DAVID L. LEWIS,
More informationCriminal Liability For Food Safety Violations: Jensen Farms and the FDA s Heightened Enforcement Efforts
Criminal Liability For Food Safety Violations: Jensen Farms and the FDA s Heightened Enforcement Efforts December 4, 2013 Sarah L. Brew Partner, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Jason Resnick Vice President &
More informationCase: , 09/30/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 51-1, Page 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-17480, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143671, DktEntry: 51-1, Page 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED SEP 30 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase3:14-cv MMC Document38 Filed05/13/15 Page1 of 8
Case:-cv-000-MMC Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 United States District Court For the Northern District of California MARTIN MEE
More informationCase 1:14-cv IMK Document 125 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1959
Case 1:14-cv-00075-IMK Document 125 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1959 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, WATSON
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------
More informationArvind Gupta v. Secretary United States Depart
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-5-2016 Arvind Gupta v. Secretary United States Depart Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationJason Foscolo, Esq. (631) Food Safety Modernization Act Enforcement Prepared by Lauren Handel, Esq.
Jason Foscolo, Esq. jason@foodlawfirm.com (631) 903-5055 Food Safety Modernization Act Enforcement Prepared by Lauren Handel, Esq. FDA s Enforcement Powers and Rights of Regulated Entities The Food Safety
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE In re: Mark McDowell; Jim Joens; Richard Smith; and the Campaign for Family Farms, including Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement,
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/16 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-10488 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/10/16 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN M. ULRICH, individually and on
More informationCase 5:14-cv JLV Document 138 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1868
Case 5:14-cv-05075-JLV Document 138 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1868 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CIV. 14-5075-JLV Plaintiff,
More informationCase , Document 248-1, 02/05/2019, , Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 17-1164, Document 248-1, 02/05/2019, 2489127, Page1 of 7 17-1164-cv Nat l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. N.Y. State Dep t of Envtl. Conservation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY
More informationINADMISSIBILITY ON PUBLIC CHARGE GROUNDS
Comments submitted to the Department of Homeland Security in the Matter of : INADMISSIBILITY ON PUBLIC CHARGE GROUNDS Kristie De Peña & Jeremy L. Neufeld Niskanen Center Submitted: December 10, 2018 DHS
More informationAdministrative Law--Constitutional Law--Judicial Review of FTC Remedial Orders Restricting Commercial Speech
Notre Dame Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Article 10 2-1-1980 Administrative Law--Constitutional Law--Judicial Review of FTC Remedial Orders Restricting Commercial Speech William D. Fearnow Follow this and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0-dms-jlb Document Filed // Page of 0 0 DANIKA GISVOLD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC. et al., Defendants. Case No. cv DMS (JLB)
More informationCase 3:11-cv EMC Document 183 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 16
Case :-cv-00-emc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 0 United States Attorney SARA WINSLOW (DCBN Chief, Civil Division 0 Golden
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CCCaaassseee:::- - -cccvvv- - -000- - -LLLHHHKKK DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt000 FFFiiillleeeddd///000/// PPPaaagggeee ooofff 0 CHAD BRAZIL, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
12-761 din THE Supreme Court of the United States POM WONDERFUL LLC, v. Petitioner, THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationWASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
Docket No. FDA-2017-N-5101 COMMENTS of WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION to the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Concerning Review of Existing Center for Drug Evaluation and
More informationChapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.
Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 539 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationNos , , PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. (ffk/a PHILIP MORRIS, INC.) and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., et al. and LORILLARD TOBACCO CO.
Nos. 09-976, 09-977, 09-1012 I J Supreme Court, U.S. F I L E D HAY252910 PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. (ffk/a PHILIP MORRIS, INC.) and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., et al. and LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., V. Petitioners,
More informationCase 2:06-cv JCC Document 51 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-00-JCC Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 0 JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married individual, d/b/a GORDONWORKS.COM ; OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington limited liability company, v. Plaintiffs, VIRTUMUNDO,
More informationADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK GOOGLE INC. V. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2007) BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP V. SUPER DUCK TOURS, LLC 527 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-00-TEH Document Filed0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KIMBERLY YORDY, Plaintiff, v. PLIMUS, INC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-teh ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,
Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED
More informationCOURT AWARDS ATTORNEYS FEES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS IN MOTOR CARRIER LEASING DISPUTE 1. Richard A. Allen
COURT AWARDS ATTORNEYS FEES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS IN MOTOR CARRIER LEASING DISPUTE 1 Richard A. Allen In an unusual and potentially important ruling, a federal district court has interpreted a statutory provision
More informationCase 4:15-cv JSW Document 55 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 TROY WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jsw ORDER GRANTING MOTION
More informationEmerging Issues in UDAP: Preemption. By: Travis P. Nelson 1
Emerging Issues in UDAP: Preemption By: Travis P. Nelson 1 One of the broadest tools in a plaintiffs attorneys arsenal, and that of public prosecutors as well, is state unfair and deceptive acts and practices
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:10-cv-07936-MMM -SS Document 10 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 10-07936 MMM (SSx) Date December
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BIG STONE GAP DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BIG STONE GAP DIVISION SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN STEWARDS, ET AL., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:16CV00026 ) v. ) OPINION AND
More informationCitation to Code of Federal Regulations and statutory citation (as applicable):
January 26, 2018 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Docket No.: FDA-2017-N-5101
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 8:17-cv-00356-JVS-JCG Document 75 Filed 01/08/18 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1452 Present: The Honorable James V. Selna Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Not Present
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN General Counsel DAMA J. BROWN Regional Director JAMES R. GOLDER, Texas Bar No. 00 Email: jgolder@ftc.gov SUSAN E. ARTHUR, Texas Bar No. 000 Email: sarthur@ftc.gov Federal Trade
More informationPetition for Enbanc and Petition for Panel Rehearing.
No 16-1289 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. CONRAD E LEBEAU, Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendant-Appellant. Petition for Enbanc and Petition for Panel Rehearing.
More informationCase 2:16-cv TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cv-0-tln-ac Document Filed 0// Page of SLOTE, LINKS & BOREMAN, LLP Robert D. Links (SBN ) (bo@slotelaw.com) Adam G. Slote, Esq. (SBN ) (adam@slotelaw.com) Marglyn E. Paseka (SBN 0) (margie@slotelaw.com)
More informationUNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200
UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 Marc M. Seltzer Partner Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Los Angeles, CA USC Law School and L.A. County Bar Corporate Law Departments Section
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-01848-TSC Document 1 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLYMOUTH DIRECT, INC. 425 Stump Road, Box 427 Montgomery, PA 18936 and NATURES PILLOWS,
More informationCase 1:09-cv CKK Document 5 Filed 09/24/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:09-cv-01810-CKK Document 5 Filed 09/24/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1810 ) U.S.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Harrisburg Division. Civil Action No.
Ý» ïæïèó½ªóððéíèóçõ ܱ½«³»² ï Ú»¼ ðìñðëñïè Ð ¹» ï ±º îê IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg Division SOUTH MOUNTAIN CREAMERY, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. Civil
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 583 U. S. (2017) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 17A570 (17 801) IN RE UNITED STATES, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [December 8, 2017] The application
More informationCase 4:15-cv CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:15-cv-00386-CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, in his official
More informationWHOLE FOORS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.; MRS GOOCH S NATURAL FOODS MARKET, INC.; WFM-WO, INC.; and WFM PRIVATE LABEL, L.P.
Case:-cv-0-EJD Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 Pierce Gore (SBN ) PRATT & ASSOCIATES The Alameda, Suite San Jose, CA Telephone: (0) -0 pgore@prattattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES
More informationSeafood Safety and Compliance with FDA and CBP Regulations
Seafood Safety and Compliance with FDA and CBP Regulations Peter Quinter Customs & International Trade Law Group GrayRobinson, P.A. (954) 270-1864 Peter.Quinter@Gray-Robinson.com March 11, 2013 Boston
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 175 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE, for itself and as parens patriea,
More informationThe Trade Marks Act, 1999 (No. 47 of 1999) [30 th December, 1999] CHAPTER I Preliminary
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (No. 47 of 1999) [30 th December, 1999] An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks, to provide for registration and better protection of trade marks for goods
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 6, 2009 United States Court of Appeals No. 07-31119 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
More information