In March 2006, the FCC issued an order assessing a forfeiture of $21,000 against Baxter for five separate violations of the Communications Act and FCC rules. On October 27, 2010, the United States filed a Complaint regarding Baxter’s five FCC violations: (1) willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau directive; (2) willfully and repeatedly causing interference with ongoing communications; (3) willfully and repeatedly broadcasting communications in which Baxter had a pecuniary interest; (4) willfully broadcasting impermissible one-way communications; and (5) willfully failing to exercise station control. Due to the death of an essential FCC witness, count #4 was dropped and the United States filed an amended complaint on November 5, 2010, which sought enforcement of the forfeiture order based on four of the original five violations, totaling $18,000. The United States moved for summary judgment on three of the four remaining counts, and the District Court granted summary judgment on two of those counts, ordering enforcement of forfeitures totaling $10,000. The District Court ordered the remaining two counts to go to trial, and the United States requested that they be voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, and without costs or fees to any party, in order to avoid the need for further litigation on matters for which the time and expense exceeded the potential added recovery. The District Court denied summary judgment on the charge that Baxter had engaged in pecuniary transmissions by advertising his website, which contained various commercial inducements. The District Court held that the government had failed to produce evidence, such as a screenshot, from which the District Court could make an independent determination that Baxter’s website was selling products. On January 10, 2012, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States regarding the first two violations and imposed forfeiture amounts, respectively, of $3,000 and $7,000, namely, failure to respond to a bureau directive and willful interference, for a total of $10,000. Discussion: First, with respect to Baxter’s violation of Section 308(b) of the Communications Act, the undisputed evidence showed that the FCC asked Baxter multiple times to provide information regarding his method of station control and that Baxter failed entirely to provide that information. That failure was a direct violation of Section 308(b), which requires radio licensees to furnish information requested by the FCC. Second, with respect to Baxter’s interference with the transmissions of other amateur radio operators, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Baxter began operating his station while other users were on the air, thus interfering with the ongoing communications. Baxter submitted no evidence to dispute the declarations of FCC employees who witnessed the interference; to the contrary, he directly admitted that he caused interference. On that record, the District Court properly granted summary judgment to the government. Arguments respectfully submitted by: RICHARD MURPHY Attorney for the United States, under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515 Joel Marcus Counsel Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 (202) 418-1740 Evan J. Roth Assistant U.S. Attorney 100 Middle Street Portland, ME 04101 East Tower, Sixth Floor (207) 780-3257