
    KEE LEE, dba Chin’s Market and Kitchen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-15434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 1, 2015.
    Kee Lee, Fresno, CA, pro se.
    Alyson Anne Berg, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kee Lee, DBA Chin’s Market and Kitchen, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 7 U.S.C. § 2023 action seeking judicial review of the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service’s (“FNS”) final decision permanently disqualifying his store from participating in the federal food stamp program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Wong v. United States, 859 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lee failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the hundreds of suspicious transactions identified by FNS did not show that Lee was trafficking in food stamps. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B) (providing for permanent disqualification from participation in the federal food stamp program on the first occasion of trafficking); 7 C.F.R. § 271.2 (defining trafficking as “[t]he buying, selling, stealing, or otherwise effecting an exchange of [food stamp] benefits issued and accessed ... for cash or consideration other than eligible food____”); see also Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1272 (9th Cir.1997) (“The burden is placed upon the store owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violations did not occur.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     