United States v. Carroll, Civ. A. No. 858.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 858.
• Citation: 203 F. Supp. 423
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert B. CARROLL, Jr., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

203 F. Supp. 423

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert B. CARROLL, Jr., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 858.

United States District Court W. D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division.

April 9, 1962.

Charles M. Conway, U. S. Atty., Robert E. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff.

Boyd Tackett, Texarkana, Ark., George E. Steel, Nashville, Ark., for defendant.

JOHN E. MILLER, Chief Judge.

The motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on Count IV of the complaint pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., is now before the court.

The United States of America, plaintiff herein, filed its complaint containing four separate counts against the defendant, Robert B. Carroll, Jr., on July 17, 1961, in which it alleged violations of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 590g-590q, by the defendant. The motion is directed only to Count IV. In that count the plaintiff specifically alleged that the defendant participated as a farmer under the Agricultural Conservation Program for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, and in such capacity made claims upon and received payment from the plaintiff as follows: $1,399.98 in 1956, $1,331.76 in 1957, and $1,209.74 in 1958, or a total amount of $3,941.48 for the three-year period for soil conservation practices allegedly performed by defendant on a farm operated and controlled by him.

That the State Committee determined that for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958 the defendant knowingly filed claims for payment of federal cost-shares under the program for practices not carried out, or for practices carried out in such a manner that they did not meet the required specifications therefor. Accordingly, claim is asserted against defendant for refund of the $3,941.48.

Plaintiff further alleged that defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies under the regulations for a review of such determinations, or the time authorized for such administrative remedies has been permitted by defendant to lapse.

Defendant filed his answer on August 2, 1961, in which he admitted the allegations in Count IV of the complaint to the extent that he participated as a farmer under the Agricultural Conservation Program for the years in question and that he made claims upon and received payment from plaintiff in the alleged sums.

He denied that he was not entitled to such payments; that the State Committee had basis for any conclusions to the contrary; that he failed to carry out the practices required of farmers participating in the program; and that he failed to meet the required specifications under the terms of the pertinent regulations.

Defendant further alleged, to the contrary, that he did receive proper payments, that he did properly apply the materials, that he was qualified to receive the materials, and that he met all required specifications under the terms of the applicable regulations.

On February 23, 1962, defendant filed his amended answer in which he alleged that plaintiff's action is barred by the statute of limitations, and that said action should be dismissed.

On February 27, 1962, plaintiff filed its request for admissions, but the defendant has not responded to said request, and therefore the request for admissions stands as admitted. Rule 36, Fed.R.Civ.P.

On March 22, 1962, the plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment based upon the plaintiff's complaint, defendant's answer, plaintiff's request for admissions, and exhibits thereto.

Defendant, in a letter filed April 2, 1962, waived his right to respond to the above motion and to submit a brief in opposition to the motion, but did not concede that the motion should be sustained. Therefore, the court must determine the motion by a consideration of the record and the applicable law.

Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1345, gives the court jurisdiction of this action.

The questions presented are whether there is any genuine issue as to any material fact, and if not, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.; Handley v. City of Hope, Ark., (W.D. Ark.1956), 137 F.Supp. 442; Marion County Co-op Ass'n v. Carnation Co., (W.D.Ark.1953), 114 F.Supp. 58, aff'd 8 Cir., 214 F.2d 557.

There is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the present case. The following undisputed facts appear in the record.

During the years 1956 through 1958 plaintiff, United States of America, conducted a program of soil conservation — the Agricultural Conservation Program — pursuant to which payments and grants of aid were made to farmers carrying out certain prescribed soil conservation practices. The program was conducted by the Department of Agriculture, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 590g-590q, and the regulations promulgated in connection therewith.

The defendant, Robert B. Carroll, Jr., participated as a farmer under the Agricultural Conservation Programs for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, and in said capacity made claims upon and received payment from the plaintiff as follows: $1,399.98 in 1956, $1,331.76 in 1957, and $1,209.74 in 1958, or a total amount of $3,941.48 for the three-year period for soil conservation practices allegedly performed by defendant on a farm operated and controlled by him.

The State Committee of the Agricultural Conservation Program mailed the following letter dated March 9, 1960, to the defendant:

"You are familiar with an investigation of the activities of the Carroll Building and Appliance Company in handling purchase orders issued in connection with the Agricultural Conservation Program. The investigation was made by the Compliance and Investigation Division.

"Information contained in the report indicates that certain claims for payment of Federal cost-shares were made by you as a farmer for practices reported to have been performed in connection with the 1956, 1957, and 1958 Agricultural Conservation Programs. The claims for payment contain representations as to the manner and extent in which the practices were performed. The ACP State Handbook requires for each of these years that sales invoices be filed with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation County Committee in connection with the claim for payment where materials other than those acquired on purchase order are used.

"To complete your report of performance and claim for payment you filed with the ASC County Committee invoices by Carroll Building and Appliance Company. For each of the years involved, the investigation report contains information indicating that one or more of the invoices reflected a greater delivery of certain specified quantities and quality of material than could have been delivered. Use of the quantity and quality of material indicated to be available would not have resulted in performance of one or more practices as represented in the claims for payment.

"The information presently available indicates that a finding that a false claim was knowingly filed may be proper. * * *

"* * * If there is a finding of a knowingly filed false claim, all cost-shares paid (including the Government's cost of materials advanced on purchase order) for the program years involved must be recovered. The records show that you were paid cost-shares totaling $3,941.48 under the 1956, 1957, and 1958 programs.

"The State Committee expects to consider the case further on March 16 at 4:00 p. m. The Committee will be in session in Room 387 in the Federal Building here in Little Rock. A farmer has the right to appear before the State Committee in person or by counsel and present evidence in his behalf if he wishes to do so. If you wish to appear before the State Committee, you should do so on the date and at the time set out above."

The above hearing, of which the defendant was notified by the above letter, was postponed from time to time due to illness in the family of the defendant, but eventually was held on April 21 and 22, 1960, at which time the defendant was notified that according to the information available at the time it would have been impossible for him to comply with the practices claimed, but the Committee gave him additional time in which to produce additional records. No additional information was furnished, and on May 5 and 6, 1960, the case was again reviewed, resulting in a finding that false claims had been filed.

The State Committee of the Agricultural Conservation Program mailed the following letter, dated May 23, 1960, to the defendant:

"* * * The State Committee has considered the statements which you made; however, no documents or other data or information has been furnished to clear up discrepancies existing between the quantity of several kinds of material acquired by your firm and that for which delivery was certified by you on purchase orders and as cash sales including those reported to have been made to you as a farmer. Discrepancies also existed between the quantity of seed which you reported sold from specified lots of seed and the quantity of seed from the lots which your suppliers show to have been sold to Carroll Building and Appliance Company. Seed for which payment is claimed under the ACP must meet the specifications set out in the program. Documentary evidence is required to show that the specifications were met.

* * * * * *

"The State Committee carefully considered all information which has been made available to it. * * * The quantity of the specific lots of seed which your suppliers' records show that were sold to your firm was less than the quantity of the seed from the lots which your firm reported to have delivered. If the acreages reported were actually seeded at the rate reported using uncleaned or untested seed, it appears that erroneous information with respect to quality of the seed was furnished to support the claim for payment. The State Committee has, therefore, administratively found that

...