In the Matter of the Petition by: 
 STEPHEN CROUSE,
 P.O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA 19058-1654,

 Notice of Intent to Close P. O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA  19058-1654

 P.S. Docket No. 37/92

 04/5/91

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Stephen Crouse, pro se, P. O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA 19058-1654 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jerry Belenker, Esq., Law Department, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-1144

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Stephen Crouse appealing the Postmaster's Determination to close P.O. Box 1654. The Postmaster determined that the box should be closed under Domestic Mail Manual § 951.163, which prohibits the use of post office boxes for unlawful activity.

By agreement of the parties, and Petitioner's waiver of his right to an oral hearing, this decision is based upon the written submissions, exhibits, and pleadings.

Petitioner conducts a scheme in which he places orders for multiple magazine subscriptions by submitting checks for several hundred dollars drawn on bank accounts which are either nonexistent, closed, or have insufficient funds. Some of the subscriptions are for fictitious individuals.

Then, before the bogus check is returned by the bank unpaid to the magazine publishing company, Petitioner cancels the subscriptions and requests that a refund be sent to him at P. O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA 19058.

Section 951.163 of the Domestic Mail Manual provides that post office boxes may not be used for, or in connection with, a scheme or enterprise which violates any Federal, state, or local law. A postmaster may close a box when the box customer has violated any regulation or condition relating to the use of the box. DMM $S951.82.

Petitioner has clearly attempted to obtain money through the mails at P. O. Box 1654 by means of fraudulent representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

Petitioner has submitted various letters in an attempt to show that he has reached a settlement with certain victims of his scheme. However, such settlements are not a defense to the determination in question. The only issue is whether P. O. Box 1654 was used for unlawful activity.

Petitioner also states that P. O. Box 1271, Bristol, PA 19007 was closed by him after receiving a Notice of Termination dated July 9, 1990. That box was also terminated by the postmaster due to unlawful activity. However, Petitioner states that he was not informed of his right to file an appeal from that determination. However, even if he was not so informed, the closing of that box has no bearing on the issues presented in the instant case, which relate only to the use of P. O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA.

He also speculates that if he had been able to appeal the determination for P. O. Box 1271, that he might have settled with the companies in question at an earlier date, and he might not have engaged in the unlawful activity with respect to P. O. Box 1654. That contention is unreasonable. Suffice it to say, Petitioner continued to make fraudulent claims for refund even after the Bristol postmaster drew attention to his illegal activity.

Petitioner's contention that the closing of P. O. Box 1271 should be considered as an adequate penalty for both cases is also rejected. The regulation provides for the closing of all boxes used for unlawful activity, and there is no basis for closing only one box where more than one box was used unlawfully. Thus, even if the instant proceeding had involved the postmaster's determination with respect to both of Petitioner's boxes, the result would have been the same regarding P. O. Box 1654.

Accordingly, the Postmaster's determination is sustained and the Petitioner's appeal is denied.