Maxia v. U.S., 82-1426
| Decision Date | 07 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1426,82-1426 |
| Citation | 687 F.2d 276 |
| Parties | Ed MAXIA, d/b/a Ed's Clover Farm Supermarket, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George W. Proctor, U. S. Atty., Sherry P. Bartley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Michael Everett, Zolper & Everett, Jonesboro, Ark., for appellant.
Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, STEPHENSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Ed Maxia, owner and operator of Ed's Clover Farm Supermarket, appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 upholding the action of the Department of Agriculture disqualifying him from participating in the Food Stamp Program for a period of six months. The District Court found that the appellant had a store policy of exchanging conspicuously ineligible merchandise, such as cigarettes, for food stamps in violation of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. § 2021. The appellant does not challenge the finding that violations occurred at his store, but alleges that the trial court erred in ruling that the sanction imposed on appellant by the Food and Nutrition Service S of the Department of Agriculture was not arbitrary and capricious.
Appellant operates a small grocery store in Tyronza, Arkansas, and became authorized to participate in the Food Stamp Program in 1970. Since that time, Department of Agriculture personnel have made eight educational and four compliance visits to appellant's store. Two of the compliance visits resulted in confirming letters dated September 19, 1974, and August 19, 1976, notifying the appellant of violations found by FNS personnel. A 1977 investigation disclosed minor violations warranting an official warning letter dated June 23, 1977. Over a five-week period in March and April of 1978, undercover shoppers made six investigative visits to appellant's store. Store personnel sold ineligible merchandise for food stamps to the undercover shoppers on five of these visits. Of the total merchandise sold to FNS personnel, approximately 42 per cent was ineligible, including items of highly conspicuous ineligibility.
On January 11, 1979, the Department of Agriculture sent appellant a letter stating that the Department had reason to believe appellant had violated the Food Stamp Act and requesting an explanation. Appellant denied committing any violations. On April 13, 1979, FNS notified appellant he was disqualified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PTF Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 83-0195-CV-W-3.
...is not controverted then the court's concern focuses on whether the penalty imposed is arbitrary or capricious. See Maxia v. United States, 687 F.2d 276, 277 (8th Cir.1982); Studt v. United States, 607 F.2d 1216, 1218 (8th The Secretary of the Department is authorized under 7 U.S.C. § 2021 ......
-
Rorex v. US BY & THROUGH DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
...agency in determining the appropriate sanction. Studt v. United States, 607 F.2d 1216, 1218 (8th Cir.1979); See also Maxia v. United States, 687 F.2d 276, 278 (8th Cir.1982). "Only when the Department of Agriculture has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in imposing a sanction may ......
-
Milgram Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 81-0288-CV-W-6.
...of 7 U.S.C. § 2021, the trial court appraisal of the sanction is governed by the "arbitrary or capricious" test. Maxia v. United States, 687 F.2d 276, 277 (8th Cir.1982); Studt v. United States, 607 F.2d 1216, 1218 (8th Cir. 1979). The sanction chosen by FNS is deemed to be arbitrary or cap......