Appeal of P.S. Docket No. MD 94-7 - AARON J. SMITH, ARNOLD J. SMITH, III, QUAD MEDIA and BERNARD LAFLEUR

In the Matter of a Mail    		) September 9, 1994
Dispute Between:    			)
					)
AARON J. SMITH    			)
ARNOLD J. SMITH, III    		)
QUAD MEDIA     				)
      					)
 and     				)
					)
BERNARD LAFLEUR    			) P.S. Docket No. MD 94-7

0 R D E R

On August 17, 1994, an Initial Decision was issued in which it was determined that mail addressed to Quad Media at P.O. Box 1084, Pulaski, VA 24301-1084 is to be delivered as directed by Arnold J. Smith, Ill. Disputant LaFleur has filed an appeal^1/ from the Initial Decision in which he apparently is contending that the mail addressed to Quad Media at the above address should be delivered to him not to Disputant Smith.

Disputant LaFleur has not shown that the Initial Decision is clearly erroneous with respect to mail addressed to Quad Media at the above address. However, the record supports the additional conclusion that mail addressed to both Quad Media and Disputant LaFleur, or Quad Media and Disputant Smith is most likely intended for the named individual (See I.D. FOF ¶¶ 4 & 5).

Accordingly the Judicial Officer on his own motion has determined to modify the Initial Decision to provide that mail addressed to Quad Media and/or either of the disputants at P.O. Box 1084, Pulaski, VA 24301-1084 is to be delivered in accordance with the direction of the named individual. The Initial Decision as modified is the final agency decision as provided in 39 C.F.R. §965.12.

The parties are reminded that resolution of this dispute determines only the right to delivery of the mail. It does not determine the question of ownership. If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for assuring delivery of the mall to the correct recipient.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer

1/ Disputant LaFleur has attached evidence to his appeal which he did not submit to the Administrative Judge. Since Disputant LaFleur has not shown that the evidence attached to his appeal could not have been presented to the Administrative Judge, such evidence will not be considered on appeal.