Hotel Partners LTD v. Secy of the Interior

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 00-50950
_______________________
HOTEL PARTNERS, LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Civil Docket #SA-99-CV-0836(EP)
_________________________________________________________________
May 21, 2001
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant challenges the denial of a certification of its
renovated hotel in San Antonio for purposes of securing an income
tax credit. Appellant contends that the Secretary’s decision was
(a) based on regulations that are not within the purpose and scope
of the enabling legislation and (b) arbitrary and capricious.
We have carefully considered these arguments in light of
the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, oral argument, the

-- 1 of 3 --

2
district court’s comprehensive opinion, and applicable law. Having
done so, we find no error in the court’s conclusion that the
Secretary could examine the proposed addition to Appellant’s
building in order to determine whether the rehabilitation would be
“consistent with the historic character of such property.” 26
U.S.C. § (c)(2)(C). The statute, which does not otherwise define
a rehabilitation, confers sufficient discretion on the Secretary to
authorize the regulations governing this decision. Appellant has
confused the standards for allocating and quantifying the tax
credit with the standards for maintaining the historic character of
the property. The former regulations do not inform the role of the
Secretary of the Interior here.
As for the substance of the Secretary’s decision, we are
not permitted to substitute our judgment for that of the agency and
may only hold the decision arbitrary and capricious if it failed to
consider the relevant factors and reveals a clear error of
judgment. Citizens to Preserve Overton Parish, Inc. v. Volpe, 401
U.S. 402, 416, 915 S.Ct. 814, 823 (1971). As the district court
held, that difficult test is not satisfied here. The Secretary’s
decision agreed with the position espoused by the Texas Historical
Commission, and it is sufficiently supported by the record. We
find no deficiency in the process or reasoning employed to reach
the decision denying certification.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --