Case Name: PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the relation of the AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain C. E. STASTNY, Commanding Officer of the Long Beach Naval Station, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1976-07-15
Citations: 537 F.2d 384
Docket Number: No. 72-2905
Parties: PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the relation of the AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain C. E. STASTNY, Commanding Officer of the Long Beach Naval Station, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WALLACE and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 537
Pages: 384–384

Head Matter:
PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the relation of the AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain C. E. STASTNY, Commanding Officer of the Long Beach Naval Station, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 72-2905.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 15, 1976.
Melissa A. Taubman, Deputy County Counsel (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jaques B. Gelin, Atty. (argued), Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Jan Chat-ten, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal, for defendants-appellees.
Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
Before WALLACE and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The disposition of the above appeal was withdrawn from submission and deferred pending the disposition of two cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those cases have now been decided and are entitled Hancock v. Train, -U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976); and Seeber v. Alabama, -U.S.--, 96 S.Ct. 2643, 48 L.Ed.2d 384 (1976). It is, therefore, now ordered that the above appeal be submitted for disposition.
Upon the authority of the Supreme Court's decision in Hancock, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.