USA v. Thomas J. Ballanco (8th Cir. 2004)

Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (February 27, 2004)

Docket number: 03-1074
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/18517680
Id. vLex: VLEX-18517680

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1074

United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Alexander ‘Alex’ White Plume; Percy White Plume, their agents, servants, assigns, attorneys, and all others acting in concert with the named defendants; Defendants, Tierra Madre, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Madison Hemp and Flax Company 1806, Inc., a Kentucky corporation; Intervenor Defendant, Thomas J. Ballanco, Movant Below - Appellant.

Submitted: February 13, 2004

Filed: February 27, 2004

Before BYE, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

In this interlocutory appeal, Thomas J. Ballanco appeals the district courtÂ’s1 denial of his motion to intervene in this declaratory judgment action filed by the United States. We affirm.

Since 1998, Ballanco, an attorney, has been providing legal advice to various corporations and members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe regarding hemp production. Ballanco alleges he has spent considerable time and effort developing and implementing a legal and regulatory structure on the reservation for hemp production, and claims a right to participate in harvesting, producing, brokering and promoting hemp.

In 1998, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council passed an ordinance purporting to legalize hemp production on the reservation. In 2000, 2001 and 2002, Alexander White Plume cultivated and manufactured hemp on federal trust land. In August 2002, the government brought this action seeking declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the defendants from producing hemp on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Ballanco moved to intervene as a matter of right in the litigation. The district court denied BallancoÂ’s motion finding he did not have Article III standing and BallancoÂ’s alleged interests were adequately protected by the parties to the litigation.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of South Dakota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

We review the denial of mandatory intervention de novo. United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1158 (8th Cir. 1995). We conclude the district court properly denied BallancoÂ’s motion to intervene and affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

[1] The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

Other documents:
McCoy v Shaw 277 U.S 302 1928 | 22 CFR 224.15 Ex parte contacts. | united states of america, plaintiff-appellee, v. lorenzo l. mitchell, defendant-appellant., 256 f.3d 734 (7... | 42 USC 300 Sec 300aa-32 Judicial review | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Galicia, of February 16, 2000 | resolucion de 5 de mayo de 2000, de la universidad autónoma de madrid, por ... | Número de Identificación Único: 07040 2 0044057/2007 Procurador/a: Sin Prof... | Ayuntamiento de Cabezon de Liebana .- Aprobacion inicial y exposicion publica del expediente de modificacion de credito numero 1/07. | verordening (eg) nr. 905/2001 van de commissie van 8 mei 2001 tot vaststelling, voor de sector s... | LLEI 10/1999, de 21 d'abril, de modificació de la Llei orgànica 1/1992, de 21 de febrer, sobre ... | EDICTE de l'Ajuntament del Montmell, sobre aprovació d'un plec de clàusules. | Holmy v Duracell Inc 1st Cir 2002