Jameson Weatherford v. Dep't of Homeland Security , 539 F. App'x 255 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1339
JAMESON WEATHERFORD,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Transportation
Security Administration. (12-TSA-0029)
Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: September 19, 2013
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jameson Weatherford, Petitioner Pro Se. Sharon Swingle, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jameson R. Weatherford petitions for review of the
Transportation Security Administration’s (“TSA”) order imposing
a $1500 penalty for his violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105(a),
1540.111(a)(1) (2013). We “must uphold TSA’s decisions unless
they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law, or unsupported by
substantial evidence.” Suburban Air Freight, Inc. v. Transp.
Sec. Admin., 716 F.3d 679, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Having conducted this review, we deny
the petition.
First, Weatherford’s claims that the administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) refused to consider his challenges to TSA’s
authority and denied him his choice of representation are
contradicted by the record. The ALJ clearly considered and
rejected Weatherford’s contention that TSA lacked standing to
impose civil penalties, and simply refused to delay the
proceedings further following the late appearance of
Weatherford’s chosen representative, a decision that we do not
find arbitrary or capricious.
Similarly belied by the record is Weatherford’s
suggestion that the ALJ erred by not responding to his inquiries
regarding the nature and procedure of the administrative
proceedings. Weatherford was alerted repeatedly to the basis of
2
TSA’s and the ALJ’s authority and notified of the procedural
rules governing the administrative process.
Weatherford’s assertion that the ALJ may have violated
his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by requiring him to
respond to TSA’s complaint is also without merit. Weatherford
did not properly invoke his right to silence during the
administrative proceedings. N. River Ins. Co. v. Stefanou, 831
F.2d 484, 486-87 (4th Cir. 1987).
Last, we find no error in the ALJ’s rendering of a
decision based on the allegations in the complaint. As the ALJ
explained, Weatherford’s misunderstanding of TSA’s allegations
or the administrative process was no excuse for his failing to
timely answer the complaint. Accordingly, the ALJ was permitted
to deem the complaint’s allegations admitted and no other
evidence was required to support the decision. 49 C.F.R.
§§ 1503.611(d), 1503.629(f)(5) (2013).
We therefore deny Weatherford’s petition for review.
We also deny Weatherford’s pending motion to dismiss and his
motion to strike and correct portions of the administrative
record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3