in a partnership, or (B) officer, director, or holder of more than 10 per centum of the outstanding stock of a corporation or association.” 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(9). Bama contends that Mims should not be barred from its employment because he was not “responsibly connected” with Mims Produce. In support of t use neither Mims nor Mims Produce previously challenged the Secretary’s conclusion that Mims was “responsibly connected,” despite the notification sent by the USDA to Mims which indicated that he could raise such a challenge. Mims, therefore, waived his right to contest the issue of whether he was responsibly connected to Mims Produce by failing to challenge directly the determination. See Farley and Calfee, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 941 F.2d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Bama cannot step into Mims’ shoes and
holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error holding that a defendants failure to object to the denial of his right peremptorily to challenge alternates constitutes a waiver of any right to appeal the issue holding that failure to respond to notices from the usda constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing to contest the issue of whether a person is responsibly connected with a paca violator holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue