Jameson Weatherford v. Dep't of Homeland Security, No. 13-1339 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1339 JAMESON WEATHERFORD, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ADMINISTRATION, SECURITY; TRANSPORTATION SECURITY Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order Security Administration. (12-TSA-0029) Submitted: August 22, 2013 of Decided: the Transportation 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). they are arbitrary, otherwise not in We must uphold TSA s decisions unless capricious, accordance an with abuse law, of discretion, unsupported or or by substantial evidence. Suburban Air Freight, Inc. v. Transp. Sec. 679, Admin., 716 F.3d quotation marks omitted). 681 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (internal 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 contradicted denied by the him his record. choice The ALJ of representation clearly considered are and rejected Weatherford s contention that TSA lacked standing to impose civil proceedings penalties, further and simply following refused the delay the appearance late to 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 proceedings. nature and procedure of the administrative 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 during not properly invoke his administrative proceedings. right to silence the 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. to Accordingly, the ALJ was permitted deem the complaint s allegations evidence was required support to the admitted and decision. no 49 other 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 record. legal before strike and correct portions of the administrative We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
