# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mandell, Spector, Rudolph Co. v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0116%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1967 - **Citation:** 385 U.S. 1008 ## Text LIBRARY, ; ; : a ay PME C 1 2 8 ral 9 8 October Term, 1966. V Now 7 3 . MANDELL, SPECTOR, RUDOLPH co, 25 — A \ \ THE UNITED STATES, CC Respondent. — FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 10 1 a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS» ’ FOR-THE THIRD CIRCUIT. me: 13 Kony, 2600 Fidelity Philadephia Trust Bldg, Se xg ah Brent Philadelphia, Pa. 19109 } s Attorneys for Petitioners. Of Counsel: ee 2 3 idx Dr.worrs, Paxéox, - | FF.. Kaisa, Kon & Levy, \ eee g 2600 Fidelity-Phila. Trust Nds. 3 Philadelphia, Pu 110 Z 3 Petitioner, JJ 8 1420 Walnut Street, . Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 International, 711 So. Soth St., Phila., Pa, 19143—Tel. SA 78711 Area Code 15 g ö 5 i . e 2 ‘ . : : 8 2 2 . : ‘ . \ * 2 ry : i 5 5 ay 9 0 ee / ey 8 “ee fore 175 ’ 7 . le F 5 2 * * e ; -~ * 7 755 \ & 25 \ : 5 5 — * OPINIONS 1 sestneqetenenscestansendanees casenent * « . Jorispicrion eee sion Eliminates From §9(b) of Procedure Act the Right to Achieve” Compliance Guaranteed by ‘Congressional Statute to . Prevent: Administrative Abuse of the Licensing Power Wi Concruston Were eee este 55 —— of the United States. Court of - Ate for 2 7 * a 4 rt * ‘ : ei — 7 9 : ve *s, 9 5 * 2 * 2 6 ° 5 e Oa 8 7 aN 4 ; o ot 4 5 18 “8 : * * > 3 * K Oo ; 7 5 dis e * ( . r a ’ 0 — 8 He o ey * * x 7 ; 3 ae A 2 ‘ 5 . a „„ yt * oon ee RY 5 f 8 ae . TABLE oF CITATIONS. ,: ere 8 “Pan Atinntic. 88. op , Atlantic C. L: NR. 258 U. S5. i . 1 L. Ed. 2d 963, 77'S. . 8 5 8 Statutes an a ee Fage. ‘Aiigsitiistrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 242, §9(b), 5 v. 8. 2 ie a WN a ee 3,4, 6, 7, 8 Attorney Generals Manual on the Administrative Procedure. 3 Act, p. 90 (1947) C ee e ee 7 House Report No: 1980, 79th Cong. 2nd Sess., Pp. 404l, re ea printed, Sen. Doc. 248, pp. 27497 poe . Lavery, Federal Administrative Law, § 125 (1952), p. 74 fe . Note, Procedural Safeguards for ‘Licensees : Section, 908) « of | oe the APA,” 75 Harv. L. Rev. 383-84 (1961) . easy OS .. Perishable Agricultural Commodities W: 5 ( „„ „ § 9, 7 U. %%%%%ùdw / ĩͤ ane BARS "Remarks of Sektor McCaren, reprinted, Sen. Dec. 248, p. 323 8 a EASILY SENET EGE A IN 2 : — 2 oo 2nd Sess 6 Peetition for a Writ of Certiorari REASONS FOR GRANTING THE “WRIT. e True Third Circuits. Decision Eliminstes From §9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act the Right to Achieve Compliance: Guaranteed by Congressional Statute to Prevent Administrative Abuse of the Licensing Power. The W question here at i issue is one of vital! im- portance, not merely to petitioner and the Department of Agriculture, but to the hundreds of thousands of holders of federal licenses throughout the country. Congress en- . - acted 5 9 0b) of the Administrative Procedure Act in recog- _ nition that the power to suspend and revoke licenses is . literally the power of commercial life and death. In order to restrict the use of this most powerful of weapons in the - administrative agency’s arsenal, Congress. established both procedural and substantive safeguards to the licensee which were to come into play prior to any license suspension proceeding. See Note, Procedural Safeguards for Licen- sees: Section 9(B) of the 2 778 mary: L, Rev. 383-84 (1961). ee 3 9(b) first requires oiling notice of the alleged violations which may warrant, suspension.” In this respect Congress merely restated the ‘pre-existing due process re- quirement of notice and opportunity to defend. But Con- gress went much further by requiring in addition‘ that 4. An examination of the Congressional Record and the com- mittee reports leaves no doubt that the opportunity to achieve com- ; pllesce wee to be a protictiog'to the Hcenste 1 in addition to thé notice | 1 Remarks of. we Walter, 92 Congressional Record 79th Cong., 2nd Sess, (1946), reprinted, Sen. Doc. 248, 79th , 2nd Sess., p. 368. See also remarks of Senator McCaren, nted, Sen. en. Doc. 248, p. 525; 1 1980, 79th "ts, 7 reprinted, Sen. Doc. 248, pp. 274.75; l. rt No. 52, h Cone 1st Sess, reprinted, Sen. Doc. * Petition for a Writ of Certiorart 5 7: “the licensee shall live been accorded: opportunity » demonstrate or achieve compliance with all.lawful require- ments“ prior to institution of suspension proceedings. The nature of this opportunity was explained by the Senate Judiciary Committee as an Pede for the correction of conduct questioned by the agency’’. (Senate Document’ 248, 79th Cong., and Sess., 1946, p. 35.) 8 „ supplied.) The Department o Agriculture in the present case adopted a position obviously at odds with the plain lan- guage of §9(b) which guarantees petitioner the right to achieve compliance as a condition precedent to disci- plinary action. The Department successfully contended. below that the acoountings already rendered could not be undone, and that the reformed record-keeping system could not amount to compliance in the past when proper records had not been kept.“ To say that a licensee does not “achieve n eee unless he demonstrates past compliance the equiyalent of a successful denial of the offense charged —is clearly to eliminate the right of compliance from the Act and re- 7 5. The Government’s position was summarized as follows at 7 a pp. 44-45 of its brief below: “The short of the matter is that, as to the false accountings which had beert rendered, MSR could not of course, achieve com- pliance; 1 6., it could not undo the (erroneous accounts sales which had ‘been rendered: And, while it had every opportunity to ‘demonstrate’ compliance throughout the administrative pro- ceedings, it utterly failed to do so. . And, whether or not petitioner may now be keeping accurate and proper records, that does ndt amount to ‘compliance’ in the 1252 when proper records admittedly were not kept.” 88 Thus, the Department 0 Justice rej ected its own previous in tion of § 9(b) as set forth in the 7—ç— General's ere Administrative Procedure Act, p. 90 (1947 ), and quoted in Lavery, - Federal Administrative Law, 5 125 (1952), p. 74: This sentence requires an Agency to give a 33 an oppor- * 5 tunity to * his conduct before his License can be revoked © by any 0 —, supplied.) 2 ‘ 8 | | Petition r a Writ of Gertiorari : due the two-fold protection of § 9(b) mand to the single and pre-existing due process p on of notice and oppor-” bees - , tunity. to defend. Yet the-Judicial- Officer and the Court — 2 of Appeals adopted the Department’s construction of §9(b) | and found that the Administrative Procedure Act had been satisfied by the mere ser ding of a formal letter giving notice of the violations charged. The construction of the court below, unless revie and reversed by this Court, 0 will drastically curtail the protections to federal lioensees a expressly provided by Congress. It will.relieve adminis- ö trative agencies of the burden of ever having. to prove willfulness in license suspension or revocation proceedings. Administrative officers, under this decision, will be able to . impose at will the capital punishment of commercial ex- . tinction for first offenses and unintentional misconduct vio- ae lative of even the most minor of the myriad regulations : | under which federal licensees must operate. . It was this very danger which Congress sought to remedy by enacting § 9(b) and granting licensees the right to take corrective action before losing their licenses. This Court has said in construing another provision of § 9(b), „Where the remedy for an evil is clear, the remedial pro- 1 _ Visions of the Administrative Procedure Aet- hae given full effect.” Pan Atlantic’ 88. Corp. v. “Atlantic C. L. RR., 353 U. S. 436, 440, 1 L. Ed. 2d 963, 77 8. Ct. 999 (1957). It is therefore imperative that this Court resolve the construction of §9(b) to preserve to the licensee the | right to a second chance to reform his conduct which 19 Congress intended and provided as a limitation on he Ad- | he | oe PS — ministrative power over licenses. e Note, supra, 75 Harv. L Rev. 38, 384, 386 8 CONCLUSION. For ‘ha’ reasons ‘stated above, this Court should grant the petition and issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third 9 Respeotfully submitted, ae nis @ Hanon E. Kox, | Wu T. Coreman, In., Dam H. Marron, 2600 Fidelity- Philadelphia Trust Bldg. * Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19109 We for Petitioner. 07 Counsel: Du. wonrk, Paxson, Kauisx, Konn & Lavy, 2600 Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust _— * Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19109 Nb Sram, * 1420 Walnut St.- . 5 elphia, . 19102 3 Von . 2 Petition for a Writ * Oertiorur - 9 9 e dees * ä : APPENDIX. * ‘UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS | ate el rn, 85 1 1 ber. ‘MANDELL, SPECTOR, ‘RUDOLPH €0.,° Petitioner 8 ime 4 1 5 * UNITED Savas or AMERICA, 2 . o Pee e ee eu ok Chait 2 or THE SronRTART o AGRICULTURE 5 & 3 i = Argued March 24, 196 Before McLavenum, Hastie and Ganzy, Circuit Judges. . or or THE couRT ° | (Filed en 24, 1966) By dane: Circuit Judge. : This is an appeal under the Judicial Review Act of 1950, seeking a review of an order issued by the Judicial 1. 64 Stat. 1127, as amended, 5 U. S. C. 1031, et seg. es GP. 2 12 f - Appendia : Officer | of the 8 of Agriculture, pursuant to au- thority delegated to him by the Secretary of Agriculture. Tue order was issued pursuant to the Perishable Agricul- i tural Commodities Act, wherein the petitioner was sus- pended for 90.days from operating in interstate commerce as a commission merchant, dealer and broker in fresh fruits and vegetables: The execution of this order has been stayed by the e Oer pending the outcome ef this appeal. ME Perishable Agrioaltiial Commodities Act requires of all persons transacting business in fresh fruits and : vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce as commis- af sion merchants, brokerg or dealers, to be licensed under the Act. 7 U. S. C. 4 The Act makes it unlawful for persons to engage in unfair conduct’’ as defined in 7 VU. 8. C. 499 b. The relevant subsection (4): makes it un- „ lawful— ; to fail or refuse truly and correctly to account ol make full payment promptly in vespect of any transaction in any such — to the person with whom rock transaction is had; 8 The statute 5 for the filing of a complaint with the Secretary of Agriculture of anyone complaining of a viola- tion and whenever the Secretary deems it warranted, a copy. of the complaint made will be forwarded by the Secre- tary to the commission merchant, dealer or broker, who will be called upon to answer. 7 U. S. C. 499f (a). e 7 U. S. C. 499 (b) provides as follows: Any ilar or agency. of any State or. 8 : having jurisdiction over commission merchants, deal- 5 ers, or brokers in such State or Territory and any employee of the United States Department of Agricul- ans. 8292 or any interested — ~ file, i in accordance = For any commission merchant, desler, or healer : 5 —— — ; é with rules and regulations of the e Ser Sin a com- plaint of any violation of any provision of this chapter wg 8 by any commission merchant, dealer, or broker and may request an —— of such h complaint ‘th * | Sebretary. * | Ik, in the opinion of the Secretary, the 4050 8 80 8 he may have the complaint served on the person concerned and afford him an oppertunity for a hearing before a hear- @ing examiner and, in accordance with the provisions of 7 U. S. C. 499b, if the violation is proven, he may suspend the license of the offender for a period not to extend 90 days. In addition, licensed brokers are required to assign 2 lot number to each load of the produets received and to be sold for the account of another and enter the assigned lot number on the receiving record.in connection with the respective loads and on sales tickets: identifying sales from such lots and such lot numbers shall be placed on the sales tickets at the time of the sale. Additionally, these records and documents must be kept in file for a period of 2 years. In early 1961, Hicks Produce, Inc., filed with De- partment of Agrieulture a complaint concerning 57 ip- ments of tomatoes Consigned to the petitioner for its ac- count. These shipments comprised 98,692 cartons of tomatoes. Upon investigation by the Department, thabooks of the petitioner were examined for the period through May, 1961, during which the above shipments had been handled by the petitioner. The investigators were unable to secure the accounts receivable records for this period for the reason, as averred in the petition for review, certain | . “business records were unavailable since it was alleged they — 5 had disappeared in an accident which had occurred in a “ee 7. S.C. 499 gives the Secretary authority to make such ney es an ons as may of the A N R. 42905) provides that Bieeipi — Fer og ys sewer y be' instituted only upon moving papers filed by the Deputy : Administrator acting either as a result of the e informal-complaint pro- % ceduce hereinbefore provided on. on his own motion. (Italics aia 25 f ‘etna ‘places of bees 8 However, the in- 5 vestigators compared. invoices reflecting the sale of Hicks’ a “tomatoes with prices actually paid by the buyers and a PE e 1 comparison of the prices actually paid revealed a number : of discrepancies and; as a result of their examination, the - investigators were able to identify sales of 83,313 con: tainers and they reconstructed an account sales which . showed net proceeds of $106,221.77 in connection therewith. Comparison of the figures reported by the petitioner to Hicks showed net proceeds of $104,545.57; there thus was ° an underpayment by the petitioner to Hicks of 51, 676.202 Aooordingly, on April 17, 1962, after the investigation of Hicks was completed, representatives of the Department of Agriculture met with the officers of the petitioner and their attorney and went over their findings. While there was a denial of any underpayment or discrepancies by the petitioner, in order to close the matter out the ep 2 tendered a check for $1,676.20, payable to Hicks. On the next day, April 18, 1962, the chief investiqater BE for thé Department of Agribalture, Koenigsburg, informed the officers of the petitioner that, in conformity’ With the Department 's procedure, its records would be spot-checked to determine whether the Hicks case was an isolated case or whether it wag a regular practice. The record discloses that at that time ani’ informal disciplinary complaint Was served by Investigator Koenigsburg upon the respondent, 3 but, on motion of the petitioner when listed for argument in this court, any reference to this informal complaint was stricken by the ‘court since the complaint itself was not ey introduced i in evidence. and 28 55 a part of the record i in the case. 5 4 g sities The main thrust of the n en is that = to the commencement of this second of the two in- estigations on April 18, 1962, one day after the completion of the Hicks investigation, which uncovered wrongdoing, : ot thers had not heen fled by the Becretary of Agricaltare * 4 pt 3 : wae a — 3 8 2 5 eee, „% ae ‘complaint’ by.a 9. 885 aggriovedyby, an alleged violation of the Act.“ However, at that time no objéction was sahil by the petitioner to the investigators’ perusal ef- the company’s © 3 but, i in fact, it advised them that it would cooperate fully and would furnish all books, wecords and accounts to be available to the investigators who began the investiga. tion the following day. As adverted to ahove,.and at the -Petitioner’s suggestion, it placsd at the disposal of the ' | inves rs all of thie books, records, ‘eté., that were available. It can thus be readily seen that the petitioner | had adequate notice of the investigation and was willing ef that it proceed and by their conduct in ing the books and records that were available at the investi eder dispo- sal, waived. any technicality of being ‘served with an in- faumal complaint. Furthermore, it can be seen that this investigation, one day later, stemmed from the Hicks inves- . tigation which was. begun after a complaint, so there was 3 continuity of the investigation to determinę additional wrongdoing, prompted. by the discovery of the wrongdoing - 1 discovered in the Hicks investigation. There wöuld be „ manifest unfairness to the Department of Agriculture if this objection, raised long after#he administrative process - was over, and oecasioned by the , Government’s ’s failure to make the infornial complaint part of the record, caused us to hold that the requirement of such an informal didcipli- ee nary complaint“ was requisite, and could not be waived: by respondent’s consent. In the face of. the petitioners agreement to the investigation, the aid and assistance’ ren- ' . dered by it, it was tantamount to a waiver of the require- ment of the statute, as we shall in ore detail point out. The investigators selected, at random for detailed in- véstigation, 35 shipments receiyed by. the petitioner ‘iit the périod October 4, 1960, through April 1 1962, and they discovered that the petitioner (1) did ot maintan =. * proper receiving records at the store or depot; (2) While 1 . les at the store were not identined we lot — in ses 2 e = Q°. ee Smee Siete a 2 8 chses, in many cases shipper’s initials or other identifying tently destroyed. » Later, petitioner a 78 page letter setting out in a most detailed r ˙²˙ . 2 A 3 . '@ 16 Appende marks had been used, which method, while unsatisfactory in a number of cases, was the only available method; (3) . while the sales made at the depot were identified hy the number of the railroad car in which the produce was re- ceived, when a portion of the shipment was transferred to the store for gale, a ticket was issued showing a sale to the store at a price which was normally lower than other sales mde at-the depot; and (4) the petitioner’s accounts receiv- . . able records for the period January 1, to July 1, 1961, were missing and they alleged they had been pet or inadver- * Based on the petitioner's records, the investigators compared aceount sales for these shipments with the ac- = 1 gount sales petitioner had actually rendered to the shippers and in each of the 35 instances, the comparisons disclosed discrepancies Fänging from an underfayment of $840.26 to an overpayment of $159.62, which is substantially suß- ported in the record. „ aire eae, 5 On May 23, 1962; after edtapletion of the investigation, the investigators again met with Messrs. Mandell, Spector — and Rudolph, and Ned Stein, their attornèy, and advised them of sults of their investigation: | July 26, 1962, the Department “wrote to the accounting each one of the 35 cases investigated and noted . the underpayments and discrepancies therein. While it is a fact that the sales from the shipments received had to be reconstructed both at the petitioner’s store location, as well as * . at the depot location (two service centers main- '. tained by the petitionen, by matching sales tickets and shipments name or initials; and, further, that fewer sales of of a commodity from a shipment could be found than were actually contained in that shipment, in Which instances the investigators were compelled to compute an average price ol a commodity from the identifiable sales-of a particular shipment, nevertheless, all of this was the best and only a 2 5 0 * — Yaa Re > 4 0 F „ . N . “tt f 33 — ‘ i. —— — — ts ine * Appendiuy 1 ee method available by reason or mislaid or lost records and the failure to assign lot numbers to shipments by the petitioner, | e e Some six ménths later, on November 27, 1962, the : - Department again wrote to the petitioner ‘explaining that an examination of the records of the Hicks case revealed that it did not maintain proper receiving records, that it did not assign and use lot numbers and that it was unable to locate and produce the accounts receivable ledgers. It also reminded petitioner of the fact that it had tendered N tòô Hicks a check in the amount of $1,676.20 in restitution of its underpayment; that concerning. the additional inves- tigation made as a result of what was uncovered in the. „Hicks case, 35 additional shipments were investigated co une a period from Oetober, 1960, to April, 1962, which vealed that it had under- reported and under-paid the net proceeds of 28 shipments and had over- reported and ovet- paid in 7 shipments. It can thus be seen that, here again, the Government reiterated to the petitioner the discrepan- cies that it had previously found. The letter further ad advised petitioner that it was to make restitution of ‘the underpayments, but it had declined to so do and that viola- „tions such as had been found were of sufficient grounds 126 to institute disciplinary action which could result in the revocation or suspension of its license and, finally, the letter. was, addressed to it, as stated, in compliance with * §9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. f 1008 (b), and they were Now affording petitioner an 8 portunity to furnish any explanation or comments pertain- ing to the transactions therhin listed and stating that its reply should reach the office Uf the Department not later than December 19, 1962. 3 SR ie aie se Ned Stein, ati deh the petitioner, replied to this letter on December 17, 1962, and he specifically denied the underpayments, as well as the overpayments, and ad- mitted therein that a request had been made for ‘paythent - _ of these underpayments, but his client felt that there was 4: ey. * — 82 —_ vn ee — el Le 3 Ea Avedis e 5 | no. liability 0 therefor and that, Under the circumstances, my client is desirous of defending any disciplinary action. which your department may care to institu The record discloses that at the hearing es Rien. iner Curry on March 24; 1964, Eugene N. Carlucci, an in: vestigator, testified with respect to 25 oft the ee discovered, as follows: =~ We advised them [petitioner]. of the Wa 5 dies in the last 25 acoountings. And Mr. Stein [odunsel. for the*petitioner] stated that he could not dispute our figures, as we had thoroughly examined the records, and the figures were obtained from his client’s rec- ords. We asked thé officers of the firm if they thought . dtfferently, and they replied’ that they did not. Mr. . Mandell said that there must be some explanation because they actually did not underpay anyone even © though the records indicated,they did, ‘Mr. Stein also said at' this time he wanted to discuss this matter with Mr. Gardner and Mr. Dimond - ‘ before recommending tlie payment of the underpay- ments found. 2. At that time they could not come forward with any explanation as to the discrepancies. that you found? ser A. No, sir. Q. At that time did they attempt to indigate to vou how they arrived at the manner in which they put together the figures from which they made up their * respondent’s account sales? ohn No sir. a On March 20, 1963, the acting director of the Fruit and Vegetable Division filed with the Secretary of Agricul-. ture a formal complaint charging petitioner with (1) having failed to account and make payment for the net proceeds realized from sales concerned; (2) having failed to main- tain and preserve such accounts and state fully and cor- Tectly all transactions involved in its business; and (3) ff 8. O. 4995 3 — by its failure to account and make payment truly and cor- rectly. Petitioner's license automatically terminated on October 21, 1963, because of their failure to pay the annual licensing fee which was apparently an oversight on its part, rather than a desire on its part to permit the license to terminate. In December, 1963, the Director of the Fruit and Vegetable Divisien filed with the Secretary nod- tice to show causé why a license should not be denied to the petitioner, the grounds therein asserted being substan- - tially identical to those previously made in the complaint. The two proceedings were consolidated and a hearing con- ducted in Philadelphia before a hearing examiner. In De- cember, 1964, the hearing examiner recommended that any license held by the petitioner under the Act’ be revoked and its application for.a new license denied, to which exceptions were duly filed by the petitioner... == Following oral argument, on May 14, 1964, the Judi- cial Officer entered his order containing extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Hicks transaction and with respect to the erroneous accounting concerning the 35 other lots which the investigators had examined. He also found that, by letter dated November 27, 1962, sent in accordance with § 9(b) of thé Administra: tive Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. 1008 (b), petitioner had been afforded the opportunity to achieve compliance with the Act, but failed to so do. He also found that the averaging of sales was not arbitrary and had basis in fact and logic to support it and could not be characterized as unreason- able and was necessary to arrive at the approximate amount _ actually owing to the consignors and joint account partners. He considered the violations ‘‘the most seridus and flagrant type possible under the act“ since they involved ‘breaches or fiduciary duty by an agent to his principal and by a joint account partner to his joint venturer”’ And, finally, ordered the suspension for ninety days of any license held by the petitioner and that a new license should not be is- sued until. the expiration of that period. - - * * . SN Ge AM GUTS RUE eT Ge ea ee re N * In American Export and Isbrandtsen v. Federal Mari. time Commission, 334 F. 2d 185, where a letter, in an in- _ Stance similar to the factual situation here under review, was held not to be a formal complaint, nevertheless the 1 _ court held that from a review of the record they were ree satisfied that no substantial right of due process was denied 5 to the petitioner and no prejudioe was suffered by it by its failure to comply with Rule 5b) and 8 (o) concerning formal complaints under the Federal Maritime, Commis- . sion Rules of Practice and Procedure, 46 C. F. . 5502.67. ae „ It is submitted that 5 9(b) of the Administrative Pro- cedure Act, 5 U. S. C. 5 1008 (b), was fully complied with bere by reason of the fact that the petitioner was notified r _ by letter of the violations and given an opportunity. to re- a dress ãts misconduct, but it failed to so do. It is submitted the Secretary of Agriculture sustained _ the burden of proving violations of the Perishable Agricul- tural Commodities Act for purpose of imposing a punitive license suspension and that his order of license suspension. should be affirmed: — : . Raley. A True Copy: 8 cid of -the United Sed Court of Apseali ; for the Third cr, , %t fue 3..This section, in pertinent. provides: Except in cases f = fulness or those in which public he Ith, interest or safety requires ise, no withdrawal, suspension or revocation, or annulment. of any license shall be lawful unless, prior40 the institution of agency proceedings therefor, facts or conduct which may warrant such action shall have been called to the attention of the licensee by the agency in writing and the licensee shall have been ‘accorded opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all the lawful requirements.” ° 2 * — 4 —— — — we 5 cue 8 a 8 * . ° ’ 5 * * * . * . : . S ; | > ° i * y , .2: : a © - — 5 e --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0116%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.