In the Matter of the Petition by 	)  May 21, 1992
					)
PAN AMERICAN MARKETING CORPORATION 	)
d/b/a MCKINLEY, RICHARDS & WRIGHT 	)
2261 Market Street 			)
Department A 				)
					)
	at 				)
					)
San Francisco, CA 94114-1612 		)  P. S. Docket No. WM-310

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Appeal may be taken from the attached Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge to the Judicial Officer of the Postal Service by filing exceptions contained in a brief on appeal. Such brief must be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the Initial Decision with the Recorder, Room 10833, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-6100, pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §964.16.

If no appeal is taken within the prescribed time, the Initial Decision shall become final.

						Quentin E. Grant
						Chief Administrative Law Judge

In the Matter of the Petition by  	)  May 21, 1992
					)
PAN AMERICAN MARKETING CORPORATION 	)
d/b/a MCKINLEY, RICHARDS & WRIGHT 	)
2261 Market Street 			)
Department A 				)
					)
	at 				)
					)
San Francisco, CA 94114-1612 		)  P. S. Docket No. WM-310

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:  		James Toledano, Esq.
					Toledano and Wald
					2212 DuPont Drive, Suite D
					Irvine, CA 92715-1543

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  		Geoffrey A. Drucker, Esq.
					Consumer Protection Division
					Law Department
					United States Postal Service.
					Washington, DC 20260-1144

INITIAL DECISION

On April 7, 1992, the Recorder docketed a petition herein, dated and mailed April 3, 1992, opposing the withholding of mail addressed to McKinley, Richards and Wright at the captioned address pursuant to a notice, dated March 12, 1992, from Postal Inspector-in-Charge B. L. Smith, the delegate of the Chief Postal Inspector.

On April 20, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the grounds of mootness and late filing. In a conference call with counsel on April 27, Petitioner was given to May 6 to file a response to the motion. To date, no response has been received.

Attached to the motion is a copy of a return receipt showing that Petitioner received the withholding notice on March 13, 1992. The notice advised Petitioner of the requirement of 39 C.F.R. §964.3(a) that a petition opposing the notice must be postmarked within 14 days of the date of receipt thereof. The petition should have been mailed by March 27. As noted above, it was not mailed until April 3, 1992, seven days late.

Petitioner has offered no excuse for late filing and has not otherwise opposed the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed for late filing.

						Quentin E. Grant
						Chief Administrative Law Judge