alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RICHARD B. HIME,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERAN S AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2016

- 2123

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14

- 3215, Judge Alan G. Lance Sr., Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge Margare t C. Bartley.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
S ANDRA W ALDORF W ISCHOW , Goodman Allen Donnelly PLLC, Glen Allen, VA, argued for claimant

- appellant. Also represented by E RIN E LIZABETH R ALSTON

.

A DAM E. L YONS , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R

. , M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R ., L. M ISHA P REHEIM ; A MANDAB LACKMON , Y. K EN L EE , Office of Ge neral Counsel, D epartment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge, C LEVENGER and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 20, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgardo QUINTANA Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50746.

D.C. No. CR-99-00388-SVW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

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

MEMORANDUM2

Edgardo Quintana appeals his guilty plea conviction and 120-month sentence for possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On May 17, 2000, Quintana’s attorney filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). On November 9, 2000, following our review of the record, we denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, struck the *Anders*brief, and ordered counsel to file a new opening brief addressing the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), on Quintana’s conviction and sentence.

Rather than filing a new opening brief, counsel has filed Quintana’s declaration in which he states that he does not want to pursue the issue we ordered counsel to brief. Counsel has also renewed her motion to withdraw.

Our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issues, other than the one Quintana has chosen not to pursue, that require further review. Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

. 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.
PUBLIC LAW 110–281—JULY 21, 2008 122 STAT. 2617 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3891: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–552 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 110–405 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Mar. 31, considered and passed House. 

July 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–281 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act to increase 

the number of Directors on the Board of Directors of the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation Establishment Act Amendment of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE FOUNDATION. 

Section 3(a) of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3702(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Foundation shall have a governing 

Board of Directors (referred to in this Act as the ‘Board’), 

which shall consist of 30 Directors appointed in accordance 

with subsection (b), each of whom shall be a United States 

citizen.’’. 

Approved July 21, 2008. 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Foundation 

Establishment 

Act Amendment 

of 2008. 

16 USC 3701 

note. 

July 21, 2008 

[H.R. 3891] 


dkrause on GSDDPC44 with PUBLIC LAWS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–011 2008

110th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 110–158 

CERTIFICATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE 

TREASURY TO PURCHASE TROUBLED ASSETS 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 115(a)(2) OF PUBLIC LAW 100–343, 

CERTIFICATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO 

PURCHASE, OR COMMIT TO PURCHASE, TROUBLED ASSETS UP 

TO THE LIMIT OF $350 BILLION OUTSTANDING AT ANY ONE 

TIME 

NOVEMBER 19, 2008.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services and ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, October 14, 2008. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: Pursuant to section 115(a)(2) of the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 10–343) 

(the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby certify that it is necessary for the Secretary 

of the Treasury to exercise the authority granted under the Act to 

purchase, or commit to purchase, troubled assets up to the limit of 

$350 billion outstanding at any one time. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

fi 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2012** 

**- NM** 
**- 1**  **4 4** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-0082

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM233AD

A601-0627, R01 --- 2/26/14

A601-0627_Appendix 1 --- 9/26/13

A601-0627_Appendix 2 --- 9/26/13

A600-0763, R01 --- 2/26/14

A600-0763 Appendix 1 --- 9/26/13

A600-0763 Appendix 2 --- 9/26/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
a a^a * a aau °p ° uaa b a a 

MISSOURI STATE CAPITOL	 866-342-4905 TOLL FREE 

201 W. CAPITOL AVENUE	 ^^	 573-751-0220 PHONE 

JEFFERSON CiTY, MO 65101	 ^t^^	 573-751-4564 FAX 

EMAIL: SCOTT.SIFTON@SENATE.MO.GOV

'ypi sr.sr 

MISSOURI SENATE 

SCOTT SIFTON 

L]ISTRICT 1 

July 31, 2014 

Gina McCarthy, Adniinistrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code: 110 l A 

Washington, DC 20460 

FTI

c^

^ y C ^ 

—1 ' 3

RE: Protecting Missouri communities from smog pollution 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers updated protections from dangerous smog (ground-level 

ozone) pollution, protection of public health and peer-reviewed science must be the standards used in making this 

decision. Health experts, epidemiologists, and numerous medical organizations have clearly stated that the existing 

Bush-era standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) is not adequate to protect public health, particularly vulnerable 

populations such as children, the elderly and those with breathing ailments like asthma. These same experts report 

that sniog pollution at levels as low as 55 or 60ppb can trigger asthma attacks and send children to the hospital. A 

12-city EPA analysis showed that reducing the level of smog pollution to 60 parts per billion would save 4-5 times 

as many lives compared to a weaker standard of 70 parts per billion. 

In order to best protect our public health, particularly children's health, I stron I}_urge you to set the standard at 

60ppb. 

Missouri residents deserve to know if their air is clean or not, and so we are counting on EPA to use the best 

available science to set an accurate standard. I urge you to stand strong against industry pushback and protect our 

public health. In Missouri we face above average rates of asthma, particularly in children, and many comniunities 

with unsafe air. 

Since the Clean Air Act was enacted into law more than 40 years ago, big polluters have tried at every turn to 

mislead the public and elected officials with doom and gloom economic scenarios. While they continue to cry wolf, 

the reality is that the Clean Air Act has been one of the most successful statutes ever signed into law. Their claims of 

econoniic catastrophe have never materialized, and in fact we have continued to make tremendous progress cleaning 

up air pollution all while driving technological innovation and growing our economy. 

Thank you for your consideration, the opportunity to comtnent and for all EPA's work to protect communities from 

dangerous pollution. 

Yours truly, 

Senator Scott Sifton 

District 1 

SS/nel

OO O^•^'.rt'39
'o^l

a ^ ^ W^./. O D 

^n5	a V	u)M •	^ ^ ^ 0 No	- 

LL 64 0

IM 

^ 0 

L N 

d! ^ U') . 

y^ o 

a ^3

= o

_	

I 

I 

'' 3^ 

o ^, z	 = 

M	Q.^^^N ^ ¢ ^ ^, C 

oo

Iy	C ^ ^, - ^	 °•y


dt ft

^ ^ N c ^	 'wt
# C_2005155EN.01003401.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/34

---

(2005/C 155/63)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

Past publications

OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
#### § 590.314 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 280

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the next of kin of a

deceased veteran to designate the style of flag to be furnished at the

burial of such veteran.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the next

of kin of a deceased veteran to designate the style of

flag to be furnished at the burial of such veteran.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 2301(a) of title 38, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1)(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)

6 through (C) of paragraph (1) as clauses (i) through

7 (iii), respectively; and

8 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as

9 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
2

•HR 280 IH

1 (2) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’;

2 (3) in paragraph (1), as designated by para3 graph (2) of this section, by striking out ‘‘to drape

4 the casket of’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘, of the

5 style designated under paragraph (2), with respect

6 to’’; and

7 (4) by adding at the end thereof the following

8 new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(2) The flag furnished under paragraph (1) shall

10 be—

11 ‘‘(A) a flag to drape the casket of the deceased

12 veteran involved; or

13 ‘‘(B) a flag of a size determined by the Sec14 retary to be appropriate for mounting and display on

15 an interior or exterior wall, together with such mate16 rials as the Secretary determines to be necessary for

17 such mounting and display;

18 as designated by the person entitled to receive such flag

19 under this section.’’.

Æ
PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST 

FOR NEW UAV PILOTS 
EXAMPLES 

Flight Environment

ü Do you have permission from the 

property owner if you’re flying over 

private land? 

ü Are you flying near an airport, and do 

you need to let Air Traffic Control know 

of your flight plan? 

ü If you’re flying first-person-view (FPV), 

hae you discussed your plans with 

your spotter? 

ü Have you surveyed your surroundings, 

looking for people, animals, buildings, 

etc.? 
EXAMPLES 

Equipment

ü Have you inspected your hardware for 

any loose or damaged wiring, for 

cracks, for damaged connections, etc.? 

ü Have you cleaned the lenses of your 

camera, your monitor, your FPV 

goggles, etc.? 

ü Are your batteries fully charged and 

seated/secured properly? 

ü Is your transmitter calibrated, showing 

the right range and centering for all 

sticks? Is the right model and mode 

selected, and are there any other 

calibrations you need to do? 
EXAMPLES 

Powering Up

ü Are you taking off from a safe, level 

location, free of any metal like the roof 

of your car? 

ü If you’re flying FPV, turn on your 

ground station, video receiver, goggles, 

etc. 

ü Turn on your camera. 

ü Put your transmitter trim in a neutral 

position and make sure your controls 

move freely—make sure your throttle 

is at zero. 

ü Turn on your transmitter. 
EXAMPLES 

Powering Up

ü Connect your battery and power up 

your airframe. 

ü Verify your LED indicators 

ü If flying FPV, check your video feed 

ü Ensure there are no frequency 

conflicts. 

ü Run any other pre-flight checks as 

recommended by your specific 

unmanned aerial system. 

ü Stand clear and arm your radio 

controller. 
EXAMPLES 

Taking Off

ü Slowly increase your throttle to take 

off. 

ü Hover at 3-5 feet for 15-30 seconds. 

ü Yaw left and right as you listen for any 

abnormalities—anything that sounds 

loose, and weird vibrations, etc. 

ü Fly safe! 

ü Monitor your battery usage and start 

returning to your landing zone with 

25% battery remaining.
40458.

#### CITY *OF*PEMBROKE v. JONES.

Frankum, Judge.

The burden of proof in a workmen’s compensation case is upon the claimant to show that the employee suffered an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. *Harper v. National Traffic Guard Co.,*73 Ga. App. 385 (2) (36 SE2d 842); *Hughes v. Hartford Acc. &c. Co.,*76 Ga. App. 785, 789 (47 SE2d 143); *Wilcox v. Shepherd Lumber Corp.,*80 Ga. App. 71, 73 (1) (55 SE2d 382). In a case brought by a widow to recover compensation on account of the death of her husband, where the evidence shows that the employee died on account of injuries received by him at a place where he might reasonably have been expected to be in the performance of his duties, the claimant’s case is aided by a presumption that the death arose out of and in the course of his employment, *Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Kiker,*45 Ga. App. 706 (5) (165 SE 850), but this presumption does not benefit the dlaimant upon the introduction of uncontradicted evidence showing that the employee was not in such a place, *Travelers Ins. Co. v. Curry,*76 Ga. App. 312 (2) (45 SE2d 453), *Aetna Cas. &c. Co. v. Fulmer,*81 Ga. App. 97, 101 (57 SE2d 865). Accordingly, where the undisputed evidence shows that the deceased employee, a night policeman employed for the purpose of patrolling within the city limits of the City of Pembroke in the city’s police car, was given express instructions to remain within the city limits and not to chase speeders beyond the city limits; that he had no authority to drive the automobile beyond the limits of the city except to apprehend one suspected of a maj or crime such as murder “or something in that order”, and where it appeared that the deceased met his death at a point some 19 or 20 miles outside the city limits while engaged in chasing a speeding motorist, and where there was no evidence indicating that the deceased had any reason to think, at the time he was killed, that a major offense such as murder “or something in that order” had been committed, the uncontradicted evidence demanded a finding that the deceased was beyond the scope of his employment and not at a place where he might reasonably have been expected to be in the performance of his assigned duties, and that he had in fact violated express instructions given him by the mayor and police committee of the city, and an award of compensation was, therefore, not *297authorized. The judge of the superior court erred in affirming the award of the deputy director in favor of the claimant.

Decided February 11, 1964

Rehearing denied March 11, 1964.

*Brannen, Clark & Hester, Perry Brannen, W. Ro'scoff Deal,*for plaintiff in error.

*Anderson •& Sanders, Cohen Anderson, Faye Sanders,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and. Pannell, J.,*concur.
p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

73) ll-E-3 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:51 AM Sheet 73 of 106 
P.2 

SUMMARY OF 10/5/95 MEET.ING IN ANN ARBOR, MI. BETWEEN EPA AND AAMA 

AND INTERESTED PARTIES NOTED BELOW 

Summary by David Dickinson 

List of Participants: David Dickinson, Bob Maxwell, Todd Sherwood, 

Cherly Adelman (EPA), Brian Tucker (Honda), Barbara Wendling 

(AAMA), Jim Murphy (Subaru), Dave Ferris (GM), Mike Russ (Mazda), 

Hiro Okazaki (Mazda), Mark Hester (GM), Matt Kevnick (Toyota), Mark 

Slywynsky (AAMA), Tom Falahee (Ford), John Trajnowski (Ford), Frank 

Krich (Chrysler), Susan Field (Toyota), and Wolfgang Groth (VWVA). 

Meeting was held at the request of AAMA to discuss the 

technical difficulties manufacturers were foreseeing to comply with 

California's (CARB's) OBD II requirements commencing in .1997. 

Manufacturers specifically mentioned problems with engine misfire 

detection, LEV catalyst monitoring and evap detection requirements 

commencing in year 2000. 

Manufacturers had meet with CARB earlier in the week to 

request that CARB bifurcate its waiver request so that CARB would 

only seek a waiver of federal preemption through model year 1996. 

Manufacturers expressed concern that the deficiency allowances for 

1997 are too restrictive and may result in paying real fines. 

EPA responded that it understood manufacturers concerns and 

invites any data to be submitted and presentation at the 10/17/95 

hearing. EPA also explained that it generally looks more closely 

at CARB requirements that will be implemented soon and allows for 

more discretion for future requirements. 

7 r -• i' •'. v! V 

-* A- <: V '
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 340.12 Reservations as to terms of circular.

The Secretary of the Treasury reserves the right, at any time, or from time to time, to amend, repeal, supplement, revise or withdraw all or any of the provisions of this part.
#### § 576.704 Administrative collection; referral to United States Department of Justice.

In the event that the violator does not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to this part or make payment arrangements acceptable to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the matter may be referred for administrative collection measures by the Department of the Treasury or to the United States Department of Justice for appropriate action to recover the penalty in a civil suit in a federal district court.
**Exhibit** **31.1**
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
 As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
 Sarbanes
- Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, James
A. Coyne, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PLM Equipment Growth Fund V
(the Registrant).
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
 
 4.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 
 a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)  disclosed
in this quarterly report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
 5.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial
reporting.
 
 
 
 
 Date: May
10, 2005  By:  /s/
James A. Coyne
 James
A. Coyne
 President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Natividad MARTINEZ-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50253.

D.C. No. CR-98-01943-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 8, 2000 and Resubmitted Jan. 30, 2001!

Decided Feb. 20, 2001.

Before BOOCHEVER, TROTT, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER12

Appellee’s motion based on *United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry,*231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir.2000) for summary reversal is hereby GRANTED.

The Court hereby summarily reverses Martinez-Aguilar’s conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

1

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

2

. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.