ENFORCE21661 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nt.. o. ~. v. ate. ~~~-1•.~- .~ •>~_oru ..u.. -ni .>. n,e- U. V. AiJ. :N tl IBl..a. 96-90R, 96-91R OBI has raised a n~ber of other argim~ents. These have been cansidered and reje~ed. The Tatims filed a motion to strike certain arguments raised by Cf3~i in its response to the Tatu~:,' opposition to the petiticm. That motion is denied ai root. Accor~'; fly, pursuant to the authcuity delequted to the Board of Iand Appeals by the Se¢etary cf the in*..erior, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, Osti's petition for reconsideration is denied and the petition for stay is denied as Groot. Bruce R. Harris DepiY~y Chief n~;n;=trative Judge I mnrntr~ .~^ '~' James L. Byrnes Chief Ad<aisus Judge fn. 3 (cantirnled) that the Regional Director applied beravse that is what is required by the requlsti~s at 30 C.F.R. § 842.11. {Re..rv....e at 7.) R*e applied the pzs~as standard. In his decision the Regional Director made two rulings. First, he COSLCl1LZL-'d iSt I.~,'s detprl!~inat].on that SUb5ldenCe had nOC damaged the Tatu~as' house. Seoend, he mnrluded that the P~ had properly de+..,~rw+ '.2~at II~'s response to the TfN was appropriate. We utilized the ~t~m~nr;aranrn of eV7.deLCE test t0 determine ~thdt SL'1]Sldence had damaged the Tatums' house aM that a violation of state *=;,~ations had been established. we then applied the regulatory standard in evaluating Item's respcuise to the TTN. Snick Wood, Esq. Office of the Pegional Solicitor U.S. Depaxtsoerit of the Interior 755 Parfet St., Site 151 Lakewood, W 80215 Walton D. Morris, Jr., Esq. P.O. Bois 6804 Ctarlottesville, ~P, 22906