(appellants were five farmers who planted corn on newly broken, non-irrigated acreage in Colorado in the spring of 2008; before planting the corn, each appellant obtained Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) policies, which provided (as required by the Federal Crop Insurance Act) that the insurer would not insure any acreage where the insured had failed to follow “good farming practices” (GFP); in 2009, the insurer for three appellants determined that their acreage was ineligible for insurance coverage for 2008 because they failed to follow GFP; the insurer for the other two appellants determined that it could not make a GFP determination; the Risk Management Agency (RMA) subsequently determined that all five appellants had failed to follow GFP, and the appellants received premium refunds; the district court affirmed the RMA’s findings, and on appeal, the court agreed; the record did not support appellants’ contentions that the RMA’s GFP determination was predetermined or influenced by personal bias; the RMA examined scientific evidence and determined that planting on newly broken, non-irrigated ground—without a fallow period—was not a GFP).