Reeves, et al v. Klurfeld

*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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 4, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10653
Summary Calendar
JACK REEVES; JO ANN REEVES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ROGER KLURFELD, Director, United States
Department of Agriculture, National Appeals
Division,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 5:03-CV-143-C)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We affirm the decision of the district court for the following reasons:
1. The FSA’s determination that the Reeves did not show good faith was

-- 1 of 2 --

2
not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by the FSA’s reasonable
interpretation of its regulations. See Martin v. OSHA, 499 U.S. 144,
150 (1991); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
2. The agency’s interpretation that 7 C.F.R. § 1924.56 requires the FSA
to prepare an independent Farm and Home Plan only where the parties
disagree as to the business plan proposed therein is reasonable and thus
entitled to deference. Martin, 499 U.S. at 150.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --