February 14, 2006

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

RONALD K. MARIA

 

Determination to Terminate Post Office Box Service for

P.O. Box 2868

Waianae, HI 96792-8868

 

P.S. Docket No. POB 05-195

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Ronald K. Maria

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Catherine A. Green, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel

United States Postal Service

 

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

 

Petitioner, Ronald K. Maria, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and upholding the determination of the Waianae, HI Postmaster to terminate service to P.O. Box 2868, Waianae, HI 96792-8868.  Respondent, the United States Postal Service, opposes the appeal.

Background

            Petitioner has rented P.O. Box 2868 since January 24, 2002.  By letter dated September 28, 2005, the Waianae, HI Postmaster advised Petitioner that service to his box was being terminated pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) Sections 508.4.4.5 and 508.4.9.2, which allow the postmaster to terminate post office box service if a customer is using a post office box in connection with a scheme or enterprise that violates any federal, state or local law.  The postmaster's determination was based on evidence that Petitioner was using his box to run a fraudulent scheme in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005.

In the Initial Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Petitioner submitted nothing but a "mere denial" in his reply to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Initial Decision granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and upheld the determination to terminate Petitioner's post office box service based on the uncontradicted evidence that Petitioner was using P.O. Box 2868 to conduct a scheme in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005.  Petitioner filed a timely appeal.

Discussion

            Petitioner has not shown that the Initial Decision is erroneous as a matter of fact or law or that any other basis exists for granting his appeal.  Petitioner continues to argue that his program is not fraudulent and that the investigation by the Postal Inspector was improper.  However, he has not presented any credible evidence calling into question any of the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law Judge, or the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that Petitioner is using his post office box to conduct a scheme in violation of 39 U.S.C. §3005 and that service to his post office box was properly terminated under DMM §§508.4.4.5 and 508.4.9.2.  A review of the record establishes that the evidence supports the Initial Decision.[1]

Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied, and the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision upholding the termination of service to Petitioner’s post office box is affirmed.

 

David I. Brochstein

Acting Judicial Officer


[1] Petitioner's additional exception concerning a conflict of interest by the Administrative Law Judge is wholly without merit and will not be addressed.