KEE LEE V. USA, No. 13-15434 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 01 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEE LEE, DBA Chin’s Market and Kitchen, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15434 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00881-AWISAB v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Kee Lee, DBA Chin’s Market and Kitchen, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 7 U.S.C. § 2023 action seeking judicial review of the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service’s (“FNS”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). final decision permanently disqualifying his store from participating in the federal food stamp program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Wong v. United States, 859 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lee failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the hundreds of suspicious transactions identified by FNS did not show that Lee was trafficking in food stamps. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B) (providing for permanent disqualification from participation in the federal food stamp program on the first occasion of trafficking); 7 C.F.R. § 271.2 (defining trafficking as “[t]he buying, selling, stealing, or otherwise effecting an exchange of [food stamp] benefits issued and accessed . . . for cash or consideration other than eligible food . . . . ”); see also Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1272 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The burden is placed upon the store owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violations did not occur.”). AFFIRMED. 2 13-15434