Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
11-13186•Mariculture Technologies International, Inc. v. Farm Service Agency, et al
11-13186Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit15.10.2012
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-13186
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 6:09-cv-00905-JA-GJK
MARICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FARM SERVICE AGENCY,
SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 15, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In administrative proceedings before the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Case: 11-13186 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 1 of 2
-- 1 of 2 --
(“USDA”), the National Appeals Division (of the USDA) determined that
Mariculture Technologies International, Inc., must refund the federal crop disaster
assistance payment it had received, $27,492, for business losses due to hurricanes
that struck Florida in 1994. The refund was ordered because Mariculture failed to
comply with the requirement that it purchase Non-insured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (“NAP”) coverage for two years. Mariculture brought this
action in the District Court as an appeal of that administrative decision.
In an order entered on June 9, 2011, the District Court, on the basis of the
administrative record, granted the Secretary of the USDA (and the Farm Service
Agency) judgment. The court concluded that the refund decision was supported
by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.
Mariculture appeals the District Court’s judgment, arguing that the District
Court’s findings (in support of its judgment) are “clearly erroneous.” Appellant’s
Br. at 20, 27-29. We find no merit in Mariculture’s appeal, for the reasons stated
in the District Court’s June 9, 2011 order, and therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2
Case: 11-13186 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 2 of 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.