Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Greg MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-18
Citations: 46 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 01-10336; D.C. No. CR-00-05340-1-OWW
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Greg MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Greg MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-10336.
D.C. No. CR-00-05340-1-OWW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 18, 2002.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Morgan's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Greg Morgan appeals pro se the district court's order affirming his conviction by no contest plea and the $25 fine imposed for failure to have registration for his vehicle, in violation of Cal. Veh.Code § 4000(a), while driving on Edwards Air Force Base. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of law, United States v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.
Morgan contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his motor vehicle offense because 32 C.F.R. § 210.3, which made Cal. Veh.Code § 4000(a) applicable on the military base, represents an unconstitutional delegation of Congress' rule-making authority. The district court properly affirmed Morgan's conviction and fine because 32 C.F.R. § 210.3, when coupled with 32 C.F.R. § 634.25, is an appropriate exercise of Congress' delegation of rule-making authority as granted by 40 U.S.C. § 318. See Bicycle Trails Council of Mann v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1451 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to an express Congressional grant of rulemaking authority will be upheld "unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.") (quoting Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)).
Morgan's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.