Case Name: Angelita RAMON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Bennett J. Patricio, Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 06-15868
Parties: Angelita RAMON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Bennett J. Patricio, Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 721–721

Head Matter:
Angelita RAMON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Bennett J. Patricio, Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15868.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Angelita Ramon, Sells, AZ, pro se.
Dennis J. Clancy, Esq., Raven & Awerkamp, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Intervenor.
Kenneth Evan Gordon, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of appellee following a bench trial.
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Appellants have not established that further argument is warranted on the issue of whether the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. See SEC v. Rubera, 350 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2003) (observing that a district court's findings of fact will be upheld as long as "the district court's view of the evidence is plausible").
Accordingly, appellee's unopposed motion for summary affirmance is granted, and we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.