Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Beverly J. ROMERO-HILL, individually and doing business as Superior Claims Management; et al., Defendant-Counter-claimant-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Patricia Blancarte; et al., Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-11
Citations: 197 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 06-15338
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Counter-Defendant—Appellee, v. Beverly J. ROMERO-HILL, individually and doing business as Superior Claims Management; et al., Defendant—Counter-claimant—Third-Party-Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Patricia Blancarte; et al., Third-Party-Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Counter-Defendant—Appellee, v. Beverly J. ROMERO-HILL, individually and doing business as Superior Claims Management; et al., Defendant—Counter-claimant—Third-Party-Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Patricia Blancarte; et al., Third-Party-Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-15338.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 2006.
Decided Aug. 11, 2006.
Curtis C. Pett, Esq., Stephen J. Schaeffer, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff — Counter-Defendant — Appellee and Third-Party-Defendants — Appellees.
Beverly J., Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Darrell J. Hill, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The Clerk shall file appellants' motion to reinstate the appeal, received on July 31, 2006. The motion to reinstate the appeal is granted.
A review of the record and appellants' response to the court's June 9, 2006 order to show cause 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).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.