alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPA 25

April 26, 2004 - Page 1 of 2

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 205

NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

69 FR 22601 – 22661

April 26, 2004

(RCRA Cluster XIV, Non-HSWA)

Name of State: Washington

State Statutory Authority: 70.105 RCW

Title of Regulations: Chapter 173-303 WAC Effective Date: July 31, 2009

Date Checklist Completed: May 10, 2010

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA 

CITATION

ANALOGOUS STATE 

CITATION

WAC 173-303-

STATE ANALOG IS:

EQUIVALENT

LESS 

STRINGENT

MORE 

STRINGENT

BROADER 

IN SCOPE

PART 264 – STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

SUBPART BB – AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS

APPLICABILITY

Section 264.1050 is 

amended by adding 

paragraph (h) after 

paragraph (g) and before the 

note to read as follows:

264.1050 691(1)(g) X

Purged coatings and 

solvents from surface 

coating operations subject to 

the national emission 

standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for 

the surface coating of 

automobiles and light-duty

trucks at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart IIII, are not subject 

to the requirements of this 

subpart.

264.1050(h) 691(1)(g) X

PART 265 – INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

SUBPART BB -- AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS

APPLICABILITY
SPA 25

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 205: NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

(Cont’d)

April 26, 2004 - Page 2 of 2

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA 

CITATION

ANALOGOUS STATE 

CITATION

WAC 173-303-

STATE ANALOG IS:

EQUIVALENT

LESS 

STRINGENT

MORE 

STRINGENT

BROADER 

IN SCOPE

Section 265.1050 is 

amended by adding 

paragraph (g) after 

paragraph (f) and before the 

note to read as follows:

265.1050 400(3)(a) X

Purged coatings and 

solvents from surface 

coating operations subject to 

the national emission 

standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for 

the surface coating of 

automobiles and light-duty

trucks at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart IIII, are not subject 

to the requirements of this 

subpart.

265.1050(g) 400(3)(a) X
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.81 Petition for reinstatement. ( a ) *In general.* A practitioner disbarred or suspended under § 10.60, or suspended under § 10.82, or a disqualified appraiser may petition for reinstatement before the Internal Revenue Service after the expiration of 5 years following such disbarment, suspension, or disqualification (or immediately following the expiration of the suspension or disqualification period, if shorter than 5 years). Reinstatement will not be granted unless the Internal Revenue Service is satisfied that the petitioner is not likely to engage thereafter in conduct contrary to the regulations in this part, and that granting such reinstatement would not be contrary to the public interest.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning June 12, 2014.
[T.D. 9668, 79 FR 33694, June 12, 2014]
## SERVE D JUN E17 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I NTH EMATTE RO F JN LMARBL EAN D GRANITE , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10WP000 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2010-054 1

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designateda s Cas e No . 2008WP700206 ) ha s bee nassigne d t o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do nth e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r

person s o n th e attache dServic e List .

- n

i e A . Yod e Chie f Administrativ e Ka

w Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tmm^^^f m

FA A Docke t

No . CP10WP000 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-4 3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1OOO '

ON ECOP Y JN LMarbl e an dGranite , Inc. , Responden t ATTN : Joe l Huert a 642 9 Southfi-on

t Road , Uni t

C Livermore , C A 9455 1 TEL : 925-371-088 5 Lierr e Green , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

Regiona l Counsel , AWP-7. 6 Western-Pacifi c Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles , C A 90019-200 7 TEL : 310-725-711 7 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso no r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aurelio Roman, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 433]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered March 12, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented at the so-called *“Sirois”*hearing *(see Matter of Holtzman*
      *414
      *v Hellenbrand,*92 AD2d 405 [1983]), and the inferences that logically flow therefrom, were sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the defendant engaged in conduct that caused several witnesses to be unavailable to testify at trial *(see People v Lovett,*18 AD3d 577 [2005], *lv denied 5*NY3d 765 [2005]; *People v Perkins,*7 AD3d 644 [2004]; *People v Field,*308 AD2d 548 [2003]; *People v McClarin,*299 AD2d 495 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.
§ 514.22 Dividends received by persons not entitled to reduced rate of tax. ( a ) *General.* Article 27(1) of the convention provides that each Contracting State shall undertake to lend assistance and support to the other Contracting State in the collection of taxes covered by the convention.
( b ) *Additional French tax to be withheld in the United States* — ( 1 ) *By a nominee or representative.* The recipient in the United States of any dividend from which French tax has been withheld at the reduced rate of 15 percent, who is a nominee or representative through whom the dividend is received by a person who is not a resident of the United States, shall withhold an additional amount of French tax equivalent to the French tax which would have been withheld if the convention had not been in effect (25 percent as of the date of approval of this Treasury decision) minus the 15 percent which has been withheld at the source.
( 2 ) *By a fiduciary or partnership.* A fiduciary or partnership with an address in the United States which receives, otherwise than as a nominee or representative, a dividend from sources within France from which French tax has been withheld at the reduced rate of 15 percent, shall withhold an additional amount of French tax from the portion of the dividend included in the gross income from sources within France of any beneficiary or partner, as the case may be, who is not entitled to the reduced rate of tax in accordance with the applicable provisions of the convention. The amount of the additional tax is to be calculated in the same manner as under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
( 3 ) *Withholding additional French tax from amounts released or refunded.* If any amount of French tax is released by the withholding agent in France with respect to a dividend received by a nominee, representative, fiduciary, or partnership in the United States, the recipient shall withhold from such released amount any additional amount of French tax otherwise required to be withheld from the dividend by the provisions of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph, in the same manner as if at the time of payment of the dividends French tax at the rate of 15 percent had been withheld therefrom.
( 4 ) *Return of French tax by U.S. withholding agents.* Amounts of French tax withheld pursuant to this paragraph by withholding agents in the United States shall be deposited in U.S. dollars with the Director, Office of International Operations, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. 20225, on or before the 16th day after the close of the quarter of the calendar year in which the withholding occurs. Such withholding agent shall also submit such appropriate forms as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[T.D. 6986, 34 FR 136, Jan. 4, 1969, as amended by T.D. 8734, 62 FR 53498, Oct. 14, 1997]
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 106

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 19, 1995

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concurrent resolution permitting the use of the rotunda of

the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration

of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized

3 to be used from 8 o’clock ante meridiem until 3 o’clock

4 post meridiem on April 16, 1996, for a ceremony as part

5 of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of vic6 tims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the cere-
2

HCON 106 RFS

1 mony shall be carried out in accordance with such condi2 tions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Passed the House of Representatives December 19,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
# L_2021178EN.01000401.xml

| 20.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 178/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 178/4

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 17 May 2019
  )

| 1. | On page 29, Article 50(1): |
| --- | --- |

1.

On page 29, Article 50(1):

for:

‘1.   Spirit drinks which do not meet the requirements of this Regulation but which meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and were produced before 25 May 2021 may continue to be placed on the market until stocks are exhausted.’,

read:

‘1.   Products referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation which do not meet the requirements of this Regulation but which meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and were produced before 25 May 2021 may continue to be placed on the market until stocks are exhausted.’.

| 2. | On page 45, Annex I, category 34, point (d): |
| --- | --- |

2.

On page 45, Annex I, category 34, point (d):

for:

| ‘(d) | The raw materials used shall exclude milk products.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

The raw materials used shall exclude milk products.’,

read:

| ‘(d) | The raw materials used shall exclude milk and milk products.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

The raw materials used shall exclude milk and milk products.’.

| 3. | On page 46, Annex I, category 39, point (d): |
| --- | --- |

3.

On page 46, Annex I, category 39, point (d):

for:

| ‘(d) | Milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

Milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.’,

advocaat

avocat

advokat

read:

| ‘(d) | Milk and milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

Milk and milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.’.

advocaat

avocat

advokat

| 4. | On page 46, Annex I, category 40, point (d): |
| --- | --- |

4.

On page 46, Annex I, category 40, point (d):

for:

| ‘(d) | Milk products may be used in the production of liqueur with egg.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

Milk products may be used in the production of liqueur with egg.’,

read:

| ‘(d) | Milk and milk products may be used in the production of liqueur with egg.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

Milk and milk products may be used in the production of liqueur with egg.’.

---
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 19, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00208-CV DAVID CARMONA AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1113 GRIFFITH AVENUE, TERRELL, TEXAS 75160, Appellants V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14C-0170-2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellants’ brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 2, 2015, we notified appellants the time for filing their brief had expired. We directed appellants to file both their brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellants that failure to file their brief and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellants ha ve not filed their brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regard ing the status of their brief. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

150208F.P05 /CarolynWright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

DAVID CARMONA A ND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1113 GRIFFITH AVENUE, TERRELL, TEXAS 75160, Appellants
No. 05-15-00208-CV V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14C-0170-2. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. recover its costs of this appeal from appellants DAVID CA RMONA AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1113 GRIFFITH AVENUE, TERRELL, TEXAS 75160.
Judgment entered November 19, 2015.
www.gpo.gov

### §273. Pan American Institute of Geography and History; authorization of annual appropriations for membership

In order to meet the obligations of the United States as a member of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State—

(1) such sums as may be required for the payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of the Institute, as apportioned in accordance with the statutes of the Institute;

(2) such additional sums as may be needed annually for the payment of all necessary expenses incident to participation by the United States in the activities of the Institute; and

(3) the sum of $386,050 for payment by the United States of its assessed annual contributions for the period beginning July 1, 1964, and extending through the fiscal year expiring June 30, 1969.

(Aug. 2, 1935, ch. 430, §1, 49 Stat. 512; Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1154, 68 Stat. 1008; Pub. L. 89–646, Oct. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 893; Pub. L. 91–340, July 17, 1970, 84 Stat. 438; Pub. L. 97–241, title I, §113, Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 278.)

#### Amendments

1982—Par. (1). Pub. L. 97–241 struck out “, not to exceed $200,000 annually,” after “such sums”.

1970—Pub. L. 91–340 increased annual appropriation authorization in par. (1) from $90,300 to $200,000, and added par. (3).

1966—Pub. L. 89–646 redesignated as cl. (1) provisions of former cl. (b), increasing the annual appropriation authorization from $50,000 to $90,300 and substituted cl. (2) additional annual appropriation authorization for payment of necessary expenses incident to participation by the United States in Institute activities for former cl. (a) appropriation authorization of $98,775 for payment by the United States of its assessed annual contributions for period beginning July 1, 1951, and extending through fiscal year expiring June 30, 1954.

1954—Act Aug. 31, 1954, appropriated sufficient funds to pay back assessments for years 1951 to 1954, and increased from $10,000 to $50,000 the authorized annual contribution.

#### Annual Appropriations

Annual appropriations to meet the obligations of membership in various international organizations were contained in acts listed in a note set out under section 269a of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19051]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Ketchikan, Alaska, August 27, 2009. The purpose of this meeting is to 
discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2008.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 27, 2009 at 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 
Ranger District Office, 3031 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska. Send 
written comments to Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee, c/o District 
Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 3031 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901, or 
electronically to Diane Daniels, RAC Coordinator at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc8c8cdc2c5c9c0dfeccadf82cac9c882d9df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="610505000f08040d122107124f0704054f1412">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Daniels, RAC Coordinator 
Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 
228-4105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: July 31, 2009.
Forrest Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-19051 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Martin, Michael (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: 

### Subject: Attachments: Gary EWilliams <GEWilliams@KakeFirstNation.org> Wednesday, October 

### 10, 2012 3:15 PM Martin, Michael (OST); rich.sewell@alaska.gov; citymanager@cityofkake.org bruce@btpost.net; hank@hankm.com; tsieber@seaportair.com; Tom@WardAir.com RE: SeaPort Airlines Petition - Request for Comments Kake EAS, OVK recommendation lettert-DOT.PDF; RE: Essential Air Service proposals at Kake and Excursion Inlet

Attn: Michael Martin, U.S. DOT EAS 

### & SCASDP Programs After presentation by bothWings ofAlaska 

## I SeaPort Airlines and also Air Excursions 

## I Alaska Seaplanes atthe Organized Village of Kake's (OVK) 

### 10105/12 IRATribal Council meeting here in Kake Alaska, the OVK council passed a motion to reaffirm thetribal government's earlier recommendation forAir Excursions LLC as OVK's preferred provider underthe EAS program (see attached). Ifaformal letter is needed forthis latest comment, please advise; otherwise we will assume this email to reaffirm the tribe's recommendation will suffice. As always, thankyou foryourworkto ensure the important Essential Air Service contract is in place to help fill the unquestionable need for "essential airservice" in our rural community. Best regards, Gary

### E. Williams,

Executive Director Organized Village of Kake P.O. Box 316 Kake, AK 99830-0316

direct office email: GEWilliams@KakeFirstNation.org office phone: 907-785-6471 x111 fax: 907-785-4902 cellphone: 907-321-3577



### From: Michaei.F.Martin@dot.gov [mailto:Michaei.F.Martin@dot.gov] 

### Sent: Saturday, October 06, 

### 2012 10:42 AM 

### To: rich.sewell@alaska.gov; gewilliams@kakefirstnation.org; citymanager@citvofkake.org Cc: bruce@btpost.net; hank@hankm.com; tsieber@seaportair.com; Tom@WardAir.com 

### Subject: SeaPort Airlines Petition - Request for Comments Everyone: I recently e-mailed you documents pertainingto a Petition for Reconsideration submitted by SeaPort Airlines regarding the recent EAS selection order at Kake and Excursion Inlet. We would like to give the Alaska DOT and the communities the opportunityto offerany comments on the record with regard to SeaPort's petition before we submit a recommendation tothe Assistant SecretaryforAviation and International Affairs. In case you no longer have the e-mail I sent, I have attached SeaPort's petition and Air Excursion's response. We request thatyou reviewthe attached documents and submit any commentsyou may have as soon as possible, but no laterthan Friday. October 

### 19. Please send your commentsvia e-mail to EAS@dot.gov. Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. 1Regards, Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Essential AirService (EAS) and Small CommunityAir Service Development Program (SCASDP) (2,02) 366-6494

2
#### Guo Ying LIN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-70244.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Guo Ying Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation and the denial of her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), *see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1183 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) and we deny the petition.

We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual determinations, *Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995), and we must uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Because Lin failed to provide credible, direct and specific evidence supporting a reasonable fear of future persecution, she is ineligible for asylum. *See Ladha v. INS,*215 F.3d 889, 896-97 (9th Cir.2000). By failing to satisfy the standard for asylum, Lin necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. *See Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Lin’s motion for remand because the evidence of her pregnancy is not material. *See*8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(1); *Lainez-Ortiz v. INS,*96 F.3d 393, 394 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.