61 Agric. Dec. 269 request for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 1275 (1998) (Stay Order). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). Lang v. United States Dep't of Agric., 189 F.3d 473 (9th Cir. 1999) (Table). Respondent filed a petition for rehearing en banc which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Lang v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 98-70807 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000) (Order). Neither the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], nor Respondent sought further judicial review of In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). Neither Complainant nor Respondent has requested that I lift the July 1, 1998, Stay Order. Within 20 days after service of this Order to Show Cause, Complainant and Respondent are ordered to show cause why I should not lift the July 1, 1998, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). In re: REGINALD DWIGHT PARR. AWA Docket No. 99-0022. Order to Show Cause. Filed March 4, 2002. Brian Thomas Hill, for Complainant. Greg Gladden, for Respondent. Order issued by William G. Jenson, Judicial Officer. On August 30, 2000, I issued a Decision and Order: (1) concluding that Reginald Dwight Parr [hereinafter Respondent] willfully violated the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159) [hereinafter the Animal Welfare Act], and the regulations and standards issued under the Animal Welfare Act (9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142) [hereinafter the Regulations and Standards]; (2) ordering Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards; (3) assessing Respondent a $7,050 civil penalty; and (4) suspending Respondent's Animal Welfare Act license for 3 years 6 months. In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). On January 2, 2001, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay Pending Review requesting a stay of the Order in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000), pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. On January 25, 2001, I granted Respondent's request for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 60 Agric. Dec. 232 (2001) (Stay Order). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). Parr v. United States Dep't of Agric., 273 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2001) (Table) (per curiam). Neither the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], nor Respondent sought further judicial review of In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). Neither Complainant nor Respondent has requested that I lift the January 25, 2001, Stay Order. Within 20 days after service of this Order to Show Cause, Complainant and Respondent are ordered to show cause why I should not lift the January 25, 2001, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). In re: PETER A. LANG, d/b/a SAFARI WEST. AWA Docket No. 96-0002. Order Lifting Stay. Filed April 2, 2002. Colleen A. Carroll, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Order issued by William G. Jenson, Judicial Officer. On January 13, 1998, I issued a Decision and Order: (1) concluding Peter A. Lang, d/b/a Safari West [hereinafter Respondent], violated section 2.131(a)(1) of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.131(a)(1)) issued under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159) [hereinafter the Animal Welfare Act]; (2) assessing Respondent a $1,500 civil penalty; and (3) ordering Respondent to cease and desist from failing to handle animals as expeditiously and carefully as possible, in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort. In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59, 70, 91 (1998). On June 30, 1998, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. On July 1, 1998, I granted Respondent's request for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 1275 (1998) (Stay Order). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). Lang v. United States Dep't of Agric., 189 F.3d 473, 1999 WL 512009 (9th Cir. 1999) (Table). Respondent filed a petition for rehearing en banc which the United States Court of Appeals for the 61 Agric. Dec. 270 Ninth Circuit denied. Lang v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 98-70807 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000) (Order). Neither the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], nor Respondent sought further judicial review of In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). Neither Complainant nor Respondent requested that I lift the July 1, 1998, Stay Order. On March 4, 2002, I issued an Order to Show Cause why I should not lift the July 1, 1998, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). In re Peter A. Lang, 61 Agric. Dec. (Mar. 4, 2002) (Order to Show Cause). On March 20, 2002, Complainant filed "Complainant's Response to Order to Show Cause" in which Complainant states "[t]here is no cause why the July 1, 1998, Stay Order should not be lifted immediately, and the order in In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998), not be made effective." Respondent failed to file a response to the March 4, 2002, Order to Show Cause. On April 1, 2002, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to the Judicial Officer to consider whether to lift the July 1, 1998, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). Proceedings for judicial review of In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998), are concluded. Neither Complainant nor Respondent has shown cause why I should not lift the July 1, 1998, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998). Therefore, the Stay Order issued July 1, 1998, is lifted and the Order issued in In re Peter A. Lang, 57 Agric. Dec. 59 (1998), is effective as follows: ORDER 1. Respondent, Peter A. Lang, doing business as Safari West, is assessed a civil penalty of $1,500. The penalty shall be paid by certified check or money order, made payable to the Treasurer of the United States, and forwarded to: Colleen A. Carroll United States Department of Agriculture Office of the General Counsel Marketing Division 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Room 2343-South Building Washington, DC 20250-1417 Respondent's payment of the civil penalty shall be forwarded to, and received by, Ms. Carroll within 65 days after service of this Order on Respondent. The certified check or money order should indicate that payment is in reference to AWA Docket No. 96-0002. 2. Respondent, Peter A. Lang, doing business as Safari West, his agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or indirectly through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the regulations issued under the Animal Welfare Act, and, in particular, shall cease and desist from failing to handle animals as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort. The cease and desist provisions of this Order shall become effective on the day after service of this Order on Respondent. In re: REGINALD DWIGHT PARR. AWA Docket No. 99-0022. Order Lifting Stay. Filed April 3, 2002. Brian Thomas Hill, for Complainant. Greg Gladden, for Respondent. Order issued by William G. Jenson, Judicial Officer. On August 30, 2000, I issued a Decision and Order: (1) concluding Reginald Dwight Parr [hereinafter Respondent] willfully violated the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159) [hereinafter the Animal Welfare Act], and the regulations and standards issued under the Animal Welfare Act (9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142) [hereinafter the Regulations and Standards]; (2) ordering Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards; (3) assessing Respondent a $7,050 civil penalty; and (4) suspending Respondent's Animal Welfare Act license for 3 years 6 months. In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). On January 2, 2001, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay Pending Review requesting a stay of the Order in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000), pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. On January 25, 2001, I granted Respondent's request for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 60 Agric. Dec. 232 (2001) (Stay Order). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). Parr v. United States Dep't 61 Agric. Dec. 272 of Agric., 273 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2001) (Table) (per curiam). Neither the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], nor Respondent sought further judicial review of In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). Neither Complainant nor Respondent requested that I lift the January 25, 2001, Stay Order. On March 4, 2002, I issued an Order to Show Cause why I should not lift the January 25, 2001, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 61 Agric. Dec. (Mar. 4, 2002) (Order to Show Cause). Neither Complainant nor Respondent filed a response to the March 4, 2002, Order to Show Cause. On April 1, 2002, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to the Judicial Officer to consider whether to lift the January 25, 2001, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). Proceedings for judicial review of In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000), are concluded. Neither Complainant nor Respondent has shown cause why I should not lift the January 25, 2001, Stay Order and make effective the Order in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000). Therefore, the Stay Order issued January 25, 2001, is lifted and the Order issued in In re Reginald Dwight Parr, 59 Agric. Dec. 601 (2000), is effective as follows: ORDER 1. Respondent, his agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards and shall cease and desist from: a. Constructing and maintaining housing facilities for animals that are not structurally sound and in good repair to protect the animals from injury, to contain the animals securely, and to restrict other animals from entering; b. Failing to provide animals kept outdoors with shelter from inclement weather; c. Failing to maintain records of the acquisition, disposition, description, and identification of animals, as required; and d. Failing to establish and maintain a written program of veterinary care, as required. |