09 -3 90 8- cv EM Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina

1 

### UNI TED ST ATES COURT OF APP EALS 2 

### FO R TH E SE C O N D C IRC U IT 3 4 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R 5 6 RULI NG S BY S UM M ARY O RDER DO NO T H AVE PRECEDENTI AL EFF ECT. CI TATI ON TO A S UM M ARY ORD ER 7 FI LED ON O R A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED A ND I S GO VERN ED BY FEDERAL RULE O F APP ELLATE 8 P ROCED UR E 3 2 . 1 A ND T HI S C OU RT ’ S L OC AL R UL E 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HE N CI T I NG A S UMM ARY ORD ER I N A D OCUM ENT 9 F IL E D W IT H T H IS C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C IT E E IT H E R T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R A N E L E C T R O N IC 10 DATA BAS E ( W I TH T HE NOT ATI ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER M US T S ERVE 11 A CO PY OF I T ON AN Y PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. 12 13 At a stated ter m of the United Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit, held at 14 th e D an ielPa tri ck M oy ni ha n U ni ted St ate s C ou rth ou se, 50 0 P ea rl S tre et, in th e C ityof N ew 15 York, on the 3 day of August, two thousand ten. rd 16 17 PRESENT : 18 BARRING TON D. PA RKER, 19 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 20 DENNYCHIN, 21 Ci rcu it J ud ges . 22

__________________________________________ 23 24 EM Ltd., 25 26 Plain tif f-A pp ellee , 27 28 v. 09 -39 08 -cv , 0 9-3 92 8-c v 29 30 Th e R ep ub lic of Ar ge nti na , 31 32 Defendant-Appell ant , 33 34 Banc o d e la

Na ció n Arge nti na , 35 36 Interest ed-Non-Party-Appel lant

. 37

__________________________________________ 38 39 NML Capital, Ltd., 40 41 Plain tif f-A pp ellee , 42 43 v. 09 -39 10 -cv , 0 9-3 93 4-c v2 1 2 Th e R ep ub lic of Ar ge nti na , 3 4 Defendant-Appell ant , 5 6 Banc o d e la

Na ció n Arge nti na , 7 8 Interest ed-Non-Party-Appel lant

. 9 10

__________________________________________ 11 12 NML Capital, Ltd., 13 14 Plain tif f-A pp ellee , 15 16 v. 09 -39 26 -cv , 0 9-3 93 7-c v 17 18 Th e R ep ub lic of Ar ge nti na , 19 20 Defendant-Appell ant , 21 22 Banc o d e la

Na ció n Arge nti na , 23 24 Interest ed-Non-Party-Appel lant

. 25

__________________________________________ 26 27 NML Capital, Ltd., 28 29 Plain tif f-A pp ellee , 30 31 v. 09 -39 27 -cv , 0 9-3 93 1-c v 32 33 Th e R ep ub lic of Ar ge nti na , 34 35 Defendant-Appell ant , 36 37 Banc o d e la

Na ció n Arge nti na , 38 39 Interest ed-Non-Party-Appel lant

. 40

__________________________________________ 41 42 NML Capital, Ltd., 43 44 Plain tif f-A pp ellee ,3 1 2 v. 09 -39 29 -cv , 0 9-3 93 2-c v 3 4 Th e R ep ub lic of Ar ge nti na , 5 6 Defendant-Appell ant , 7 8 Banc o d e la

Na ció n Arge nti na , 9 10 Interest ed-Non-Party-Appel lant

. 11

__________________________________________ 12 13 14 FOR APP ELLANT: CARMINE D. B OCCUZ ZI (JONATHANI. BLACKMAN , 15 CHRISTOP HER P. MOO RE, on thebr ief ), C leary G ott lie b S tee n 16 & Hamilton LLP, New Y ork, NY 17 18 FOR INTERESTED-NON

19 PARTY-AP PELLANT : MARK S. SU LLIVAN (LAU RA M. LESTR ADE, on thebr ief

), 20 Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York, NY 21 22 FO R A PP EL LE E E M L TD .: DAVI D W . RIV KIN, JO HNB. MIS SING , S UZ AN NE M. 23 GROSSO , on thebr ief , Debevoise & Pli mpton LLP , New York, 24 NY 25 26 FOR APP ELLEE 27 NML CAPITAL , LTD.: DENNIS H. H RANITZKY(ROBERT A . COHEN, DAVID M. 28 BIGGE, on thebr ief ), Dechert LLP, New York, NY 29 30 UPON DUE CONSIDERA TION IT I S HEREBYORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND 31 DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e AFFIRMED

. 32 Defendant-Appellant t he Republic of Argentina ( “Republic”) a nd Inte res ted-Non-Part y33 Ap pe llant B an co de la N aci ón Arge nti na

(“ BN A” ) ( tog eth er, “App ell ants” ) ap pe al f rom anAu gu st 34 18 , 2 00 9 o pin ion an d ord er of

the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he So uth ern

Di str ict of Ne w Y ork 35 (Griesa, J. ) granti ng the motions of Pl aintiffs-Appellee s EM Ltd. and NML Capital, Ltd. 36 (“ App el le es ”) to co nfi rm ex p ar te ord ers dated May 22 , 2 00 7 re str ain ingand

atta ch ingcer

tai n a sse ts 37 of

the Re pu

bli c in a tr us t (the “B H Trust”) administ ere d b y th e U .S . B ank T rus t N ati on al4 1 Association ( “U.S. Bank Trust”) and denying BNA’s motion to vacate these orders. W e assume the 2 parties ’ familiarity with t he under lying facts, pr ocedural history, and the issues on appea l. For the 3 reasons tha t follow, we rejectthe Appellant s’ arguments and affirm the opinio n an d or de r of the 4 dis tri ct c ourt. 5 1. Availability of Assets for Attachment and Restraint 6 As the distr ict courtexplained—and a s the part ies do not chal lenge—a federal court employs 7 the att achm ent an d e xe cutio n p roc ed ure s p rov ide d b y th e law of the state i n whic h th e co urt sit s. 8 Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 69 (a) ; see Allianc e Bond F un d, I nc . v. Grupo Mex icano De Desarrollo, S.A. , 190 9 F. 3d

16 , 2 0 (2d

Cir. 199 9) (a

pp lyi ng Fe de ral Ru le o f C ivi l P roc ed ure 69 (a) an d, he nc e, Ne w Y ork 10 law , in

anFo rei gn

So ve rei gn

Imm un iti es A ct ( “F SI A” ), 2 8 U. S. C. § § 16 02 -11 , a cti on ). I n th is c ase , 11 therefore, the distri ct court pr operly employed the procedur es provided underNew York law. 12 So me of th e o rd er s c on fi rme d by the dis tr ic t c ou rtwe re pr e- ju dg mentat ta ch ment s a ndso me 13 were post-j udgment restraints ; the requirements under New York law are similar for both. Se e N.Y. 14 C. P. L. R. §§ 52 01 (b) , 6 20 2. At iss ue he re i s the r eq

uir em ent th at, if

the att achm ent or

res tra int is 15 servedo n a pe rs on other than t he defendant, that e ntity must, at the t ime of attachm ent be “in t he 16 possession orcustody of property in which [such per son] knows or has reason to be lieve” t he 17 defendant or judgment debtor has a n interes t. N .Y. C .P.L.R. §§ 5222(b), 6214(b). W e review the 18 distri ct court’ s ruling on a request for orderof attac hment for abuse of discretion. Aurelius Capital 19 Partners, LP v. Republic of Argent ina , 58 4 F. 3d 1 20 , 12 9 (2d

C ir. 2 00 9). “ Th e d istric t co urt ab us es 20 its disc retion i f it applies l egal standa rds incorr ectly, re lies on cl early erroneous findings of f act, or 21 pro cee ds on

the ba sis of

anerr on eo us view

of the ap pli cab le l aw .” Id. W e re view de novo the 22 dis tri ct co urt ’s de ter m inatio n of

Argentine law, Norwind v. Rowland , 5 84 F. 3d 42 0, 42 9 (2 d C ir.5 1 2009), and choice of law deci sion, Curley v. AMR Corp. , 1 53 F. 3d 5, 11 (2d Ci r. 1 99 8). 2 The distri ct court de termined that, after “ weigh[ing] plaintiffs’ offer of proof against the 3 co ntr ary

ev ide nc e o ff

ere d b y B NA ,” see Capital Ventures Int’l v. Republic of Arge ntina , 443 F.3d 4 214, 222 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaini ng that a “cour t present ed with an appli cation for an orde r of 5 att achm ent m

us t de ter m ine wh eth er a

statut ory gro un d f or atta chm ent ex ist s” by

“we igh ing

. . . [t

he ] 6 ev ide nc e”) , th e P ub lic Fund s, whi chhav e the right to rec eiv e dis tri butio ns fro m the B H T rus t, are 7 “p art

of the Re pu bli c” and the ir r ights t o re cei ve dis tri butions fromthe BH Tr us t w ere the ref

ore 8 properly at tached. The courtalso conclude d that the corpus of the BH Trust was properly att ached. 9 Ap pe llants have no t po int ed to anythi ng in

th e rec ord

that le ad s u s to co nc lud e th at the dis tri ct c ourt 10 abused its di screti on when it found that the e vidence weighed i n favor of Appellees he re. For the 11 rea so ns art icu lat ed bythe dis tri ct c ourt, the ref ore , w e ag ree that th e re co rd s ho ws that th e R ep ub lic , 12 on numerous occasions, took act ion consistent with discreti onary use of the Public Funds as partof 13 the Republic itself and that the Funds were properl y attached a nd restra ined to sat isfy the debts of 14 the Re pu

bli c. 15 W e further affirm the distric t court’ s decision t o confirm the orders atta ching or res traini ng 1 6 th e a s s e ts i nth e B H T ru s t. Ap p e ll an ts ’ p ri m ary argum e n t th a t a tt a c h m e n t an d r e s tr a int of

the se 17 ass ets wa s in

erro r is that the BH Tru st is a vali d tru st und er Arge nti ne law an d th e as set s in

the tru st 18 belon g to the trustitself, not t o the Republic. “[T]he FSIA implicitly requi res court s to apply the 19 choice of law pr ovisions of the forum sta te wit h res pect to al l i ssues governed by s tate subst antive 20 law .” Barkanic v. Gen. Admin. of Civil Aviation of the People’s Republ ic of China , 923 F.2d 957, 21 95 9 (2 d C ir. 19 91 ); see also Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan 22 Ga s B um i N

eg ara , 31 3 F. 3d

7 0, 8 5 (2 d C ir. 20 02 ) (“ [I ]n FS IAcas es, we us e th e f

orum state’ s ch oic e6 1 of

lawrul es t o re so lve all iss ue s, e xc ep t j uri sd ict ion al on es. ” (inter na l q uo tat ion m arks omitte d))

. 2 Un de r N ewYo rk l aw , “ [t ]h e f irs t st ep in anycase pres entin g a po tentia l ch oic e o f l awiss ue is t o 3 de ter

m ine wh eth er the re is ana ctu al c on fl ict be tw een the law s o f t

he jur isd ict ion s invo lve d. ” Id. If 4 a co nf

lic t is ide nti fi ed , N ewYo rk r eq uir es a pp lic ati on

of an“inter est s ana lys is” in whic h “ the law 5 of th e jur isd ict ion h av ingth e gre ate st int ere st in the li tig ati on [ is] a pp lie d an d

. . . the facts or 6 co nta cts wh ich ob tai n s ign if

icanc e in de fi nin g St ate inter est s are th os e whic h re lat e to the purpo se 7 of

the parti cu lar

lawin co nf

lic t.” Id. Fi na lly , “ Ne w Y ork lawreq uir es t he co urt to h on or t he parti es’ 8 c h o ic e [ o f

lawp ro v is io n ] in s o f

ar a s m a tt e rs o f

s u b s tan c e are c o n c e rn e d , s o lo n g a s f un d a m en tal 9 po lic ies o f Ne w Yo rk laware n ot t he reb y v iol ate d. ” Woodling v. Garret t Corp. , 813 F.2d 543, 551 10 (2d Cir. 1987). 11 W e th ere fo re lo ok to N ewYo rk l awto d ete rm ine wh eth er the BH Tr us t is a v ali d tr

us t. H ere , 12 the rec ord

su pp ort s th e co nclusion th at, de sp ite the ch oic e o f l awpro vis ion in t he BH Tr

us t 13 agreement purporting t o establi sh a t rust pursua nt to Argenti ne law, New York law would not 14 recognize i t as such si nce enforcing the t ru st agreement would violate “ fundam ental poli cies” of 15 Ne w Y ork

law . B oth

parti es agree that, un de r A rge nti ne law , th e B H T rus t is a v ali d tr us t th at 16 wo uld

be protected

fr om the Re pu bli c’s cre dit ors . H ow ev er, in N ewYo rk, “[ i] t is ag ain st p ub lic 17 po lic y to pe rm it the settlo r-b en ef ici ary to t ie u p h er o wn

pro pe rtyin such a w aythat sh e can s til l 18 enjo y it

but can p rev ent he r cr ed ito rs f rom rea ch ingit. ” V

a n d e r b il t C r e dit C o r p . v . C h as e 19 Manhattan Bank, NA , 10 0 A. D. 2d 5 44 , 54 6, 4 73 N .Y .S .2 d 24 2, 2 46 (2 d De p’t 1 98 4). F or i ns tan ce, 20 “a judgment creditormay reach the corpus of the trustif the trustagreement grants the trustee the 21 po we r to inva de the co rpu s and paythe entir e pri nc ipa l to th e se ttl or. ” In re Portnoy , 201 B.R. 685, 22 69 8 (S .D .N .Y . 1 99 6).7 1 According to the trust agr eement, the corpus of the BH Trust is to be sol d and distri buted by 2 order of the BH Trust trus te e. However, it is t he Assistance Fund—through its Exec utive 3 Committee, mem bers of which are appointed by the federal government—that di rects t he truste e of 4 the BH Trust when to sell Am er ica n Depository Share s (“ADSs”) so thatthe proceeds can be 5 dis tri buted

to t he As sis tan ce F un d and

th enu sed to cap ita liz e th e In fr ast

ruc tur e F un d. As the dis tri ct 6 co urt

de ter m ine d, the As sis tan ce F un d is act ua llypart o f th e R ep ub lic . In ef fe ct, the n, the ass ets that 7 co m

pri se t he co rpu s o f t

he BHTr us t ar e co ntr oll ed

dir ect ly byth e Re pu

bli c. Be cau se t

he Re pu bli c 8 has the curr ent authori ty to dire ct disposi tion of the corpus of the B H Trust f or its own benefit, we 9 believe t hat, for reasons of long-standi ng public poli cy, New York law would not recognize the BH 10 Tr

us t as a v ali d tr

us t e nti tle d to pro tec tio n a ga ins t cr ed ito rs. Thus , it wa s n ot e rro r f

or t he dis tri ct 11 co urt

to c on fi rm

the ord ers att ach ingan d re str ain ingthe co rpu s o f t he BHTr us t. 12 Ap pe llants ad dit ion all y argu e, with regard to the Pu

bli c Fund s, that

the dis tri ct c ourt e rre d 13 in p erf

orm inga ch oic e o f l awan aly sis and de ter m ini ng that ne ith er Arge nti ne or N ewYo rk l aw 14 wo uld

co ns ide r th em

to b e v ali d tr

us ts. W e n eed

no t op ine on

the ch oic e o f l awque sti on wi th r eg ard 15 to the Public Trusts becaus e even under Appell ants’ sugges ted analysi s pursuant t o Argentine la w, 16 for the reasons a rticul ated in the di strictcourt ’s opi nion, which we have re viewed deno vo , w e ag ree 17 with t he dis tri ct c ourt that th e P ub lic Fund s ar e n ot v ali d tr us ts p rot ect ed

fr om att achm ent and 18 res tra int

. 19 Finally, we agre e with the dis trictcourt thatthe Public Funds ar e not protec ted by Fi rst 20 National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba (“Ba nc ec ”), 462 U. S. 61 1 (1 98 3), 21 in which t he Supreme Court held tha t “duly cre ated inst rumentalities of a foreign s tate ar e to be 22 acc ord ed

a p res um pti on of ind ep en de nt s tat

us .” Id. at 6 27

. W

he the r an entity is an in str um ental ity 23 or an agency of the foreign s tate is determined by considering “whether the c ore functions” of the8 1 entity “ are pre do m inatel y g ov ernm ental or c om m erc ial .” Garb v. Republic of Poland , 440 F.3d 579, 2 594 (2d Cir. 2006) (i nternal quotation marks omited). If the entity at i ssue i s an i nstrumentality of 3 the foreign state, its propert y cannot be used to satisfy the judgments of that st ate. Se e D e L ete lie r 4 v. Re

pu bli c o f C hile , 74 8 F. 2d

7 90 , 79 5 (2 d C ir. 19 84 ). T he Ba nc ec pr es umpt io n c anbe ov er co me 5 if

, und er the p rin cip les o f co rpo rat e law , the s ep arate jur idi cal s tat us o f the in str

um ental itysh ou ld 6 be disregar ded. Id. at 7 94 ; EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina , 4 73 F. 3d

46 3, 47 7 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ). 7 He re, we need n ot d eci de wh eth er the Fund s ar e o r ar e n ot e nti tle d to the Ba nc ec 8 pre sum

pti on as i ns trum ental iti es o f t

he Re pu bli c si nc e, ev enif they are, we wo uld de ter m ine that 9 the Funds are “so extens ively contr olled by [their ] owner that a rel ationship of pri ncipal and age nt 10 is c re ate d” such that t he presumption would be overcome. Se e B an cec , 462 U.S. at 629. The 11 Assistance Fund i s controll ed by st at e appoint ees who make decisions about when to ac cess the 12 ass ets in the BHTr us t in ord er t o e ff

ect uate t he go als of

the Inf ras tru cture F un d. An d a s p rev iou sly 13 dis cu sse d, the Re pu bli c h as r ep eat ed ly t

reated the Fund s as its own. Th is is sufficient fo r us to 14 conclude that , even if the Funds are pr op erl y considered i nstrumentaliti es, any presumption of a 15 sep arate j uri dic al s tat us ha s b een

ov erc om e. 16 2. Fo rei gn So vereig

n I mmu ni tie s A ct 17 Pursuant to t he FSIA, “property i n the Unit ed Stat es of a foreign s tate shal l be imm une from 18 attachment arres t and executi on,” except as ot herwise provi ded by e xc ep tions setforth in 28 19 U. S. C. §§ 16 10 and 1611. 28 U .S .C . § 16 09 . A t is su e h ere are sec tio ns 16 10 (a) an d (d ), whic h 20 authorize pre- or post -judgment attachment of “property in the United States of a foreign state .

. . 21 us ed

f or a co mm erc ial a cti vit

y in the Unit ed

S tat es. ” Id. § 1 61 0(a ), ( d). “[ T] he pro pe rtythat is 22 subject t o attachment and executi on must be ‘property in t he Uni ted States of a foreign state’ and 23 m

us t have be en

‘us ed fo r a c om

m erc ial act ivi ty’ at th e ti m e th e writ of att achm ent or

ex ecutio n is9 1 iss ue d. ” Aurelius Capital Partners, LP , 5 84 F. 3d at 130 (quoting 28 U. S. C. § 1 61 0) ( ita lic s 2 om itted). The FSI A d ef ine s “c om

m erc ial act ivi ty” as “ eithe r a r eg ular co urs e o f c om m erc ial 3 co nd

uc t o r a p art icu lar

c om m erc ial tr an sac tio n or act .” 28 U .S .C

. § 16 03 (d)

. “The commercial 4 characte r of an activit y shall be det ermined by referen ce t o the nature of the course of conduct or 5 p art ic u lar tr an s a c ti o no r a c t, r a th e r th anb yr e f e re n c e t o i ts p urp o s e. ” Id. The Su pre m e C ourt 6 explained t hat a foreign st ate engages in comm ercial activit y “when a foreign government acts, not 7 as a

reg ulator of a m ark et, but in

the m anne r of

a priv ate play er w ith in i t.” Republic of Argent ina 8 v. We ltove r, Inc

. , 5 04 U. S. 60 7, 61 4 (1 99 2); seeals o D e L ete lie r , 748 F.2d at 797 (explai ning the 9 inquiry focuses on “whet her the act ivity is of the type an indivi dual would customarily carry on for 10 pro fi t”)

. 11 Ap pe llants co nte nd that, c ontrary t o th e det erm inatio n of the di str ict

court, the P ub lic Fund s’ 12 beneficial i nterest s in the BH Trust are not l ocated in t he Unite d Stat es and, i n any event, none of 13 the atta ched or rest rained prope rt y wa s be in g used for a commercial activi ty at the t ime of 14 att achm ent. W e d isa gre e. As th e dis tri ct co urt —and App ell ants—

rec og niz e, th e sit

us o f i ntang ibl e 15 pro pe rty , s uc h a s b en ef ici al i nte res ts, is “ the loc ati on of the partyof

wh om pe rf orm an ce i s re qu ire d 16 bythe ter

m s o f t he co ntr act .” AB

KC O I nd us ., Inc . v . A

pp le F ilm s, Inc

. , 39 N.Y.2d 670, 675, 385 1 7 N. Y. S. 2d

5 1 1 , 5 1 3 (1 9 7 6 ). T h e re is a m p le e v id e n c e in

th e re c o rd

to s u p p o rt th e d is tr ic t c o urt ’s 18 de ter

m inatio n th at the property is loc ate d in Ne w Y ork , n ot Arge nti na . T he BHTr us t tr us t 19 agreement specifies that the trustee of the B H Trust “shall dispose of any Option ADSs or Option 20 Sh ar es . . . re mai ni ng i n t he Trus t P ro pe rt y p ur su an t t o t he in st ru ct io ns re ce iv edby th e T ru st ee fr om” 21 the tru ste e o f t he As sis tan ce F un d. Thus , in ord er to ef fe ctu ate c ap ita liz ati on

o f the P ub lic Fund s, 22 by the te rm s of th e tru st ag ree m ent, U. S Bank T rus t i s req

uir ed to p erf orm a s ord ere d by the 23 Assistance Fund. The r ecord support s the conclus ion t ha t U.S. Bank Trust—t he party of whom10 1 performance is required—i s located i n New York. The Garnishee’s Statement shows that the BH 2 Tr

us t is he ld in

NewYor k St ate by U. S. Bank Tr

us t and the Un ite d S tat es a dd

res s o f t he BH Tr us t 3 is o n W all Stree t, which the tru st a gre em ent de sig nates as t he ad dre ss o f t

he “p rin cip al c orp orate 4 tru st o ff

ice .” Thus , th e P ub lic Fund s’ b en ef ici al i nte res ts i n th e B H T rus t are l oc ate d in Ne w Y ork 5 an d are thu s “p rop erty in the Unit ed

S tat es” th at we re p rop erl y atta ch ed or r est rai ne d b y th e d istric t 6 court. 7 W e further concl ude that, atthe time of at tachment, the corpus of the BH Trust and t he 8 be ne fi cia l int ere sts whi chthe Pu bli c Fund s ho ld in

the B H Tr

us t we re b ein g u sed

fo r a c om m erc ial 9 activit y. At the time of attachment, the op ti ons on the ADSs in the BH Trust had expi red and the 10 ADSs them selves were t he principal asset forming the corpus of the BH Trust. The purpose of the 11 Pu

bli c F un ds , at th e tim e of

atta chm ent, wa s to fa cil itate the s ale of the se A DS s at

a ti m e f av ora ble 12 to the Republic. The corpus of the BH Trust was t herefore an inves tment of the Republic and the 13 Public Funds’ ass ets were, as t he distri ct court de termined, being used to facil itate t he investment 14 an d e ve ntu al sale o f t he sec uri tie s. An

inv estm ent of

thi s so rt i s th e k ind

of act ivi ty t hat a p riv ate 15 player in t he market would carry on for profit and is, therefore, a “comm ercial activity” under the 16 FSIA. 17 W e have consider ed the remainder of the Appella nts’ arguments and find them to be without 18 m eri t. 19 For the foregoing re asons, the judgment of the distr ict courtis hereby AFFIRMED

. 20 21 FOR THE COURT : 22 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 23