|
South Carolina Lawyer Search - Listings for A Parker Barnes Jr & Associates
Name: A Parker Barnes Jr & Associates
Address: 500 Carteret St Beaufort, SC 29902
Phone Number: 843-522-2600
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USA v HART IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-60304 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODALTON HART Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) _ June 12, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and WIENER Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Rodalton Hart ("Rodalton") appeals his conviction by a jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 ("§ 1014") and 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B) ("§ 201(b)(1)(B)"). We conclude that the United States's ("the government's") "summary" witness did far more than summarize previously-presented evidence, and that, when the summary witness's testimony and accompanying documentary evidence is redacted, the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the government's case against Rodalton beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse Rodalton's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand the case for a new trial. I. Facts and Proceedings Rodalton has been a resident and family farmer in Holmes County, Mississippi for most of his life. After his graduation from Jacksonville State University in 1972, he returned to Holmes County to help his father run the family farm. In addition to helping his father, Rodalton started his own farm, gradually expanding his operation from thirteen acres - cultivating row crops and raising cattle - to several thousand acres by the mid-1980s. His success in farming was among the factors that led Mike Espy, who was Secretary of Agriculture at the time, to appoint Rodalton as one of Espy's advisors. In 1993, Rodalton and his brothers, who were also involved in farming, formed five separate partnerships, hoping to run their farming operations more efficiently by sharing labor, land, and equipment, and thereby maximize their income. Among the partnerships were R & C Farms (Rodalton and his wife, Carmella), and C & ...
PAYTON v. USDA FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit JUL 29 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT CHARLIE A. PAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 02-2163 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (D.C. No. CIV-01-1043-LCS/KBM) Submitted on the briefs: Eric D. Dixon, Portales, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellant. David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, and Raymond Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee. Before TACHA, Chief Judge, O'BRIEN and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Charles A. Payton, a Roosevelt County, New Mexico farmer, was terminated from the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for planting and harvesting wheat on a thirty-five-acre parcel that had been dedicated as a conservation reserve. Mr. Payton contends that the Department was mistaken about the location of the conservation reserve. The Hearing Officer, after hearing testimony from various officials involved in administering the program, concluded that Mr. Payton is correct. The Hearing Officer was overruled by the Acting Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD). The questions before us are whether the decision of the Acting Director is subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was arbitrary and capricious.(1) I. Background The CRP authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to contract with eligible farm owners and operators to remove agricultural land from farm production under an approved conservation plan, in exchange for government payments. Participants must implement a conservation plan, establish vegetative cover, and not allow grazing, harvesting, or other commercial use of the crop from the designated land. Various statutes and federal regulations define and govern these (1) After examining the briefs...
LA FED LAND BNK v FARM CRDT ADMIN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsLA FED LAND BNK v 1000 FARM CRDT ADMIN United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 8, 2002 Decided July 29, 2003 No. 01-5366 Louisiana Federal Land Bank Association, FLCA, et al., Appellants v. Farm Credit Administration, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 00cv01582) Daniel Joseph argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Beth Hirschfelder Wilensky. C. Fairley Spillman entered an appearance. Edward Himmelfarb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert S. Greenspan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Kathleen C. Kauffman argued the cause for appellee First South Farm Credit, ACA. With her on the brief were Nels J. Ackerson and L. Keith Parsons. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards and Garland, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Chief Judge: The Farm Credit Administration promulgated a rule eliminating geographical restrictions upon certain activities of lenders within the Farm Credit System, and thereby put them into competition with each other. The plaintiffs-appellants - lenders within the System - challenged the rule in district court, claiming it conflicted with the Farm Credit Act and with a 1992 Amendment thereto, and that the FCA promulgated the rule in violation of the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The dis- trict court, holding the FCA had complied with the proper procedures and the plaintiffs' statutory arguments were ei- ther without merit or had been forfeited, entered summary judgment for the FCA. We hold the Agency was required by the APA to address the plaintiffs' comment before promulgating the rule. For that reason we reverse the...
|
|
|