My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE21166
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE21166
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:23 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:55:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
3/7/2000
Doc Name
TATUM CASE DOCUMENTS
From
US DEPATMENT OF THE INTERIOR
To
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Violation No.
TD1993020370005TV3
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r <br />-~--- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR <br />OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS <br />BOARD OF LAND APPEALS <br />Appeal of JIM AND ANN TATUM ) IBLA 96-91R <br />(ON RECONSIDERATION) ) <br />~.")" Date: March 6, 2000 <br />OSM'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S "OPPOSITION TO TAE PETITION FOR <br />RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY" <br />COMES NOW the Petitioner, Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), and respectfully submits its <br />response to the Appellants' "Opposition to the Petition for <br />Reconsideration and Request for Stay" (Opposition). <br />I. INTRODUCTION <br />On January 26, 2000, OSM submitted a Petition for <br />Reconsideration and Request for Stay in this matter (Petition). <br />On February 16, 2000, the Appellants, through counsel, submitted <br />their "Opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration and Request <br />for Stay." In their Opposition, the Appellants, using several <br />arguments, urge the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA or the <br />Board) to deny OSM's Petition. OSM urges the Board to consider <br />the Petition and to grant the relief requested therein. OSM will <br />address the Appellants' arguments below. <br />II. DISCUSSION <br />In their Opposition, the Appellants make two arguments in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.