FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

OCT 1 1997

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

J&J DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

		Petitioner,

v.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

		Respondent.	

No. 96-9514
(Petition for Review)
(CFTC Docket No. CRAA-95-2)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9.  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
	J&J Development Corporation (J&J) filed this petition for review of an order of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (Commission), affirming the National Futures Association’s (NFA) decision assessing a $2000 fine against J&J for untimely filing of financial statements.  The NFA, through its Western Regional Business Conduct Committee (BCC), served a one-count complaint charging J&J with filing late reports.  The BCC held a hearing and issued a decision finding that the NFA presented reliable evidence establishing that the filings were late.  It further found J&J’s rebuttal evidence not credible and rejected J&J’s interpretation of the Commission rules to mean “business” days, as opposed to “calendar” days, noting that five of the seven late-filed documents would still have been late under that interpretation.  The BCC also credited the NFA’s evidence that it notified businesses of filing dates, and therefore found that J&J had not acted under a good faith misapprehension of the filing requirements.  Finally, the BCC imposed a fine of $2000.
	J&J appealed the BCC’s decision to the NFA Appeals Committee.  It deferred to the BCC’s judgment on witness credibility and reliability of the documentary evidence.  On the record before it, the Appeals Committee found no error by the BCC, and it affirmed.
	J&J then sought review by the Commission.  The Commission reviewed the record and found that the NFA’s conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence therein.  It did note that the NFA erred by not allowing J&J to examine the receipt-stamped original filings that were introduced into evidence in accordance with the NFA compliance rules.  It determined, however, that “the record establishes that NFA’s error did not prejudice J&J’s opportunity to challenge the material elements of NFA’s case, i.e., to show that J&J had taken sufficient steps to submit the reports in a timely manner.”  Appellant’s  App. at 19 n.3.  Thus, the Commission concluded that the error was harmless.
	J&J filed a petition for review of the Commission’s order affirming the imposed fine with this court.  See 7 U.S.C. §§ 21(i)(4) and 9.  We review the order of the Commission to determine whether its factual findings are supported by the weight of the evidence.  See id. § 9; Monex Int’l, Ltd. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 83 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 1996).  The “weight of the evidence” has been equated to a “preponderance of the evidence.”  Id.; First Nat’l Monetary Corp. v. Weinberger, 819 F.2d 1334, 1338-39 (6th Cir. 1987).
	We have reviewed the record in this case, and we hold that the Commission’s factual findings are, indeed, supported by the weight of the evidence.  Further, after de novo review, see Monex, 83 F.3d at 1133, we find no error in the Commission’s finding that J&J was not prejudiced by, and, therefore, suffered no due process violation from, the NFA’s error in not producing the receipt-stamped original forms for examination.  Likewise, we find no merit in J&J’s remaining arguments.  The final order of the Commission is AFFIRMED.

				Entered for the Court

				Stephen H. Anderson
				Circuit Judge