APACHE OIL COMPANY, INC. AND JOHNNY L. ISBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the subpoena was valid and enforceable, rejecting all challenges to its issuance and scope.
Appellants challenged a Department of Energy subpoena, arguing it violated audit policy, was based on a withdrawn policy, and lacked due process and r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subpoena Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, enforcing a subpoena issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) to Johnny L. Isbell and Apache Oil Company, Inc. The first argument advanced by appellants is that the subpoena is invalid because it violated DOE’s audit policy adopted June 22, 1978, 43 Fed.Reg. 27777. This contention was effectively rejected in a thorough discussion by Judge Becker in United States v. Fitch Oil Co., 676 F. 2d 673 (T.E.C.A.1982).
Since the subpoena does not violate the audit policy, appellants’ second claim that the audit policy was not legally withdrawn on May 13, 1982, is moot.
The third contention urged by appellants is that the review procedures (10 C.F.R. § 205.8(b)(4)) are violative of due process. This argument was likewise rejected by this court in the Fitch Oil case, supra.
Finally, the claim is made that the subpoena is defective because it does not furnish a reasonable basis for evaluating the relevancy of the requested documents to the investigation. The subpoena states that it is concerned with an audit of compliance by the appellants with the Mandatory Petroleum Price and Allocation Regulations relative to the purchases and sales of motor gasoline. The announced purpose is clear and unequivocal and the documents sought are obviously relevant to that investigation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States & Jane O'Neill v. Thriftyman, Inc., 704 F.2d 1240 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983)
-
United States v. Tex. Energy Petroleum Corp., 719 F.2d 394 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983)
-
United States & Burton E. Benner v. RFB Petroleum, Inc., 703 F.2d 528 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Fitch OIL Co., 676 F.2d 673 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982)