*1 Finally, we note that our conclusion PRESTON, Kelly Petitioner- Knote, cited Pure Coun
comports with Appellant, Knote, ex try. In interpreting “even when plained written,’ of a consent decree ‘as meaning UNITED STATES of ignore the context which we are not Respondent Appellee. - nor cir parties operating, were surrounding cumstances the order.” case, present interpreted we have United States Court of Decree in a manner that is 1969 Consent Eighth Circuit. original context and consistent with Moreover, 9, 2002.
surrounding circumstances. Submitted: Oct. af emphasizes importance Knote Filed: Nov. to the court that actual fording deference ly question. the consent decree in entered Knote, present
See id. like 5,n.
see id. at 1299 district court
interpreted the consent decree is the same originally
court that entered the consent Therefore,
decree. Knote inclines us fur adopt interpre
ther to Decree,
tation of the 1969 Consent not to
reject it. stated,
For we affirm the the reasons holding Country that Pure
district court’s standing
does not have to enforce the 1969
Consent Decree.
Conclusion af-
The order of the district court is part part,
firmed and reversed
the case is remanded to the district court proceedings
for further opinion.
this
960 Binkard, City, L. South Sioux Neder v. United 119
William
NE,
appellant.
for
court because I am concerning harmless error.
sions however,
inclined, to believe to find mail fraud permitted
tion 5 that “is untrue
through representation made,” nothing more. After Neder
when
v. United
1827,
statement agree was was,
informed on this issue. This howev-
er, harmless error.
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Roy Shelby BLUEFORD, Defendant-
Appellant.
United States Court
Ninth Circuit.
Argued April and Submitted 2001.
Filed Feb. 2002.
Amended Oct.
Further Amended Nov.
