to have occurred. Any dealer, carrier, exhibitor, handler, operator, or research facility that violates any provision of the AWA may be assessed a penalty of no more than $10,000 for each violation. Any person who knowingly fails to obey an order made by the Secretary of Agriculture is subject to a civil penalty of $1,500 for each offense. Any dealer, exhibitor, carrier, handler, auction operator, or research facility may seek a review of an order within 60 days at the United States Court of Appeals. Incidents The 2006 HBO film Dealing Dogs documents an undercover operation targeting a "Class B" kennel which treated dogs inhumanely, violating the Act. The owners of the kennel were fined over $200,000 as the result of a USDA suit. In 2011, the Dollarhite family of Nixa, Missouri, were fined $90,643 for selling several thousand dollars worth of rabbits without a license, which is required of people selling more than $500 worth of rabbits sold as pets. The USDA has increased enforcement of the law in recent years, targeting magicians who perform magic tricks with rabbits. In 2013, the USDA found that China Southern Airlines had improperly transported over a thousand monkeys without federal permission in insecure crates. The airline was forced to pay $26,038 worth of fines after over a dozen of them died. Court cases International Primate Protection League v. Institute for Behavioral Research In 1981, a graduate student and PETA member, Alex Pacheco, volunteered at a research center in Silver Spring, Maryland. At the time, Edward Taub was conducting research on monkeys for neuroplasticity purposes at that center. While Alex spent time at the research center, he noticed the inhumane treatment of the monkeys under the AWA and reported it to the police. He filed suit against Edward Taub, who was researching afferent ganglia. Edward Taub was convicted of six animal cruelty charges, which were appealed in the second trial. They proved to be significant in the understanding of the law. While this case provided an advancement in neurology research, it was doing so only by risking inhumane treatment of animals. As the court wrote in its opinion: To imply a cause of action in these plaintiffs might entail serious consequences. It might open the use of animals in biomedical research to the hazards and vicissitudes of courtroom litigation. It may draw judges into the supervision and regulation of laboratory research. It might