United States v. Duane A. Willfong

opportunity training nied the to attend responsibility “does not assume Winarto seminars as further evidence that the eval- and needs to conflicts” help and resolve pretextual. uation scores were The uncon- partic- more teamwork with “improve evidence, however, troverted demonstrates conclu- challenges” support the and ipation training that Winarto attended four semi- “pre- were Taylor’s explanations sion only nars. She was not allowed attend unworthy of credence textual as both unquali- for which she was those seminars by unlawful retaliation.” likely motivated or that focused on duties unrelated to fied sup- in the record to There no evidence her own. There was no evidence that the inference, Supreme and as port this requests was a rejection of these seminar Breeden, the mere fact that held in Court pretext for discrimination. not possible inference is does particular whether rely deciding on it allow us to Because, concluded, as the district court Breeden, 121 S.Ct. grant JMOL. there is no evidence in the record that in retaliation for Winarto was terminated the Human complaint her Resources pretext by providing show Winarto could and, indeed, own Department Winarto’s that Toshiba did not terminate evidence undisputed testimony establishes that her similarly who were situat employees other complaint discrimination and harassment See, v. Los Alamos e.g., Shapolia ed. I fully appropriately investigated, was Lab., 1033, 1039 Cir. Nat’l grant affirm the district court’s 1993) enough are not (poor evaluations retaliatory Rule 50 motion as to Toshiba’s plaintiff can pretext establish unless discharge. discriminatory re show direct evidence

taliation). presented But she no such evi I affirm the would therefore district Faced with dence to the district court. lia- judgment except court’s on all claims was forced to declining profits, Toshiba 51.7, §§ bility under Civil Code California by reducing its operating lower its costs 52(b) and 52.1. of Doc department

workforce. The entire eliminated, Training

umentation and departments, in

and a number of other

cluding Management Informa Winarto’s (“MIS”), Systems Department

tion were their head count one. asked to reduce America, STATES of UNITED only per Not did Winarto have the lowest Plaintiff-Appellee, department, evaluations in her formance but, co-workers, unlike each of her Winar- WILLFONG, Duane A. Defendant- that made her possessed unique no skill Appellant. Although received irreplaceable. Winarto No. 00-10227. 1994, ramming praise for her efforts longer were no essential to the MIS skills Appeals, United States Court of assume, department, speculative so it is Ninth Circuit. if majority, as does the that even Winarto’s May Argued and Submitted higher, she would not have scores were lack of Filed Dec. been laid off due to her current skills.

Lastly, majority relies on Winarto’s discriminatorily de-

argument that she was Bareilles, Eureka,

Kenneth M. Califor- nia, Willfong, per, and Duane Pro for the defendant-appellant.

Miquel Rodriguez, Assistant U.S. Attor- Sacramento, California, ney, plain- for the tiff-appellee. NOONAN, SILVERMAN,

Before: SEDWICK,* Judges, Circuit District Judge. SILVERMAN;

Opinion by Judge by Judge Dissent NOONAN SILVERMAN, Judge: Circuit logger’s Does a refusal to desist land, operations on Forest after a Service * Sedwick, Judge The Honorable John W. for the District of Alas- District supposed stopped at Crabtree was to have Law Enforcement Officer Forest Service stop. Willfong and had to refused to him to do so the behest ordered skidding. authorized representative Forest Service operation, consti- logging shutdown the increasingly with the Uncomfortable any forest officer “interfering tute area, situation, Crippa tense left the decid- perfor- in on account of the engaged operations that all at Crabtree must be ed protec- official duties mance of his suspended, and contacted U.S. Forest Ser- tion, or administration of the improvement, Law Enforcement Officer John Allen- vice System” Forest under 36 C.F.R. told Crippa dorf. Allendorf she had 261.3(a)? does, and we hold that it We suspension issued a order on a timber sale affirm. being disobeyed. that the and order was Crippa requested Allendorfs assistance in I. BACKGROUND gaining compliance with the shutdown or- Crippa der. Allendorf knew that had the at trial the fol- The evidence established authority to issue a shutdown order. Eel River Saw Mills entered lowing facts: Crippa two contracts with the U.S. Forest Officer Allendorf followed into Crabtree, then went down to the sale area purchase for the of timber Service Willfong Forest. The events alone. He encountered and Six Rivers National logging equipment. of heard sound of material to this case concern the sale that an shut- parcel. Willfong Eel Riv- Allendorf told oral timber from Crabtree Willfong, an down had been issued and that he would appellant er Saw Mills hired contractor, operations until the mat- independent logging perform suspend have resolved. Allen- suspension at the Crabtree ter of the was logging operations try designated Leo- dorf continued to to secure site. The Forest Service voluntary cooperation ceasing opera- for Crippa nora as its sale administrator tions, that he would performance Willfong to monitor the but stated project Willfong delegat- not shut down. Allendorf warned the contract. The Forest Service arrested, to, Willfong still authority that he could be but Crippa ed to the contractual operation. his Allen- an oral order to refused to shut down among things, other issue him if cite-and-release logging operations dorf offered to temporarily shutdown shutting down. Will- injury. cooperate or environmental prevent human placed fong refused. Allendorf then Will- Willfong and his crew to be Believing arrested, being After fong under arrest. logging breach of the contract the site on Willfong encouraged keep his crew to (Tub and con- Springs), of the other sale operation, saying words with their skidding practices cerned about the you guys “I to the effect of don’t want to the area at Crab- resulting damage keep working.” down. shut Just tree, Eel River Mills Crippa notified Saw 2, 1998, with two viola- Willfong charged was July skidding on the Crab- intimidating, day, Threatening, resisting, tions: tree was shutdown. The next sale officer, in viola- with forest Crippa went to Crabtree and observed 261.3(a); and unautho- going still tion of 36 C.F.R. logging operations that the were of 36 cutting, rized timber violation Crippa Willfong skidding told that the on. ka, sitting by designation. light most favorable to trial before U.S. the evidence At Kellison, prosecution. E.g., United States v. Judge Craig M. Will-

Magistrate Crawford, 239 F.3d Cir. fong acquitted of unauthorized timber 2001). supports finding evidence cutting, guilty but found duties in placed performing He was that Allendorf was a Forest Service officer. of the National Forest fined the administration probation $250.00. Willfong allegedly at the time interfered his conviction to U.S. District appealed Shubb, purposes who affirmed with him. For Judge William B. performing a forest officer Judge Kellison’s decision. duty duty” “official when the officer is on an act that contributes to performing II. JURISDICTION improvement, or adminis- protection, tration of the National Forest. United jurisdiction pursuant to 28 We have (9th Ryberg, v. 43 F.3d §§ review a U.S.C. 1291 and 1294. We Cir.1995); Clearly, 36 C.F.R. interpretation regulation of a trial court’s duty, performing Allendorf was on his Hoff, F.3d de novo. United States duties, (9th Cir.1994). acting capacity his official Willfong Because conviction, all material times. He was not off on appeals court views the Ryberg, “frolic of his own.” 43 F.3d at light most to the record favorable Allendorf carried out the directions whether a ra Government to determine seeking provi- of an official to enforce the trier of fact could have found the tional logging sions of the Forest Service’s con- beyond elements of the crime a reasonable Arbo, designated tract. Since the Forest Service doubt. United States v. Cir.1982). as the administrator of the con- Crippa

tract, and Allendorfs Crippa sought help order, enforcing Willfong the shutdown III. ANALYSIS successfully argue “cannot that this kind of deployment of administrative Forest Ser- A. Place in the Allendorf s Order Took germane pro- vice officers was not Performance of His Duties Official tective mission of the Forest Service.” Id. 261.3(a) provides: 36 C.F.R. Willfong argues also that he could not Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or because, have interfered with Allendorf he with forest officer en- contends, attempting Allendorf was to en- gaged perfor- or on account of the force an invalid order. This ar- shutdown protec- mance of his official duties gument for two reasons. In the first fails tion, improvement, or administration of place, presented evidence trial indis- System prohibit- the National Forest putably Crippa established that had the ed. authority suspend logging opera- to tions under the terms of the contract and Willfong contends that he not did violate 261.3(a) authority delegated to her the For- because, says, section the for- if Secondly, Crippa est Service. even est officer’s order was unlawful. We dis- authority, Willfong lacked neverthe- such agree. Allen- right had no to interfere with less appeal, long performing after a finder of fact dorf. as Allendorf was On So defendant, official duties in the administration of has convicted the we must view his The lower courts’ System, the Forest determination that anyone actions constituted prohibits interference By way analogy, person is consistent with the plain meaning those duties. right failing not have the to resist arrest word. to shut down the logging does charges operation if are false or the arrest ordered to even when do so Allen- dorf, Cunningham, Willfong clearly unlawful. States v. hindered Allendorfs (D.C.Cir.1975). ability perform duty. It his official At 509 F.2d 961 is undis- order, time good relied in faith on of Allendorfs shut down puted Allendorf Will- fong and actively his crew were validity Crippa’s shutdown order ability trees. Allendorfs to execute it. It was sought when he to enforce shut order Allendorfs, depended upon Willfong down job, to determine Crippa’s not and his crew taking steps affirmative temporary whether a shut down order operations. Willfong cease interfered with provisions should be issued under the in refusing stop Allendorf what he and contract. If the administration doing. his crew were Willfong did not order, disagreed Crippa’s he had the merely do He nothing. refused it try get rectified. He did not case, doing something stop this to right the to interfere with the offi- have —in in an the face of officer’s official cer’s enforcement of it. it. attempt stop to to B. Refusal Shut Down This situation is similar to what oc- Crabtree Constitutes “Interference” Arbo, in curred United States v. 691 F.2d 261.3(a) §

under 36 C.F.R. (9th Cir.1982). Arbo, 862 the defendant Ranger refused to allow a Forest and a Willfong contends that the failure compliance Mineral Assistant to make a obey a forest officer’s order does not inspection mining operation of his in the constitute “interference” with the officer Shasta-Trinity National Forest and had disagree. as a matter of law. We away them escorted the site. We expressly Courts have not addressed held that there was sufficient evidence to what constitutes “interference” under 36 support a conviction for interference with a 261.3(a). § prior interpre C.F.R. Without forest officer. tation, apply this court should the common Willfong contends that his refusal 22 meaning Hoff, of a word. See F.3d at did not consti- abide Allendorfs order “oppose, To “interfere” is to inter 223. “interference” because he did not use tute.

vene, hinder, prevent.” WEBSTER’S any primar- physical force. relies (3d NEW WORLD DICTIONARY Little, ily on District Columbia “ of ‘[Ijnterfere’ ed.1998). College has such (1950), 468, 70 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. 599 clear, specific meaning and well-known as Supreme which the Court held that wom- require not to more than” the use of the an who refused to unlock her door and word itself a criminal statute. United home, inspection a health of her permit 1142, 1144 2 Gwyther, States v. n. warrant, without a not un- Cir.1970). plain meaning The “in of illegal der a statute that made it to inter- comports purpose terfere” also with the of inspections. fere health The essence regulation, regulate which is to “the of Little is this: pre use of the National Forests and to threatened force is Ryberg, Although serve them from destruction.” force or 1334; always indispensable ingredient § not F.3d see also 16 U.S.C. II, A, Subpart Chapter Part with an Title of the offense duties, in the general prohibitions of his which lists discharge officer that Sub- System. or even criticisms National Forest Within mere remonstrances § usually held to be 261.1— part, provision an officer are not one C.F.R. —36 interference. equivalent prohibitions of unlawful all scope defines * * * regu- The word “interfere” including those Subpart, in that fairly interpreted be' lation cannot clearly 261.1 Section C.F.R. un- respondent’s failure to encompass covered in prohibitions that the indicates and her remonstrances lock her door It states are broad. * * * grounds. constitutional apply, except as otherwise prohibitions high a in the home holds too privacy act or omission oc- provided, “[a]n when justify a system of laws to price our or on a System National Forest curs im- statutory interpretation trail.” 36 System Forest road or punishment a criminal on one who pose added). 261.1(a)(1) (emphasis [object than nothing does more in light is read When house without entry officer’s of her 261.1(a)(1), the definition of “interfer- search warrant]. regulations applies ence” under the with an act or omission that interferes 6-7, Id. at 70 S.Ct. 468. Willfong acted to officer’s official duties. Willfong. Little Little does little for down order interfere the officer’s shut it clear that force or threatened makes refusing logging. Whether in- ingredient of force is not an essential obey refusal to the shut down 6, 70 terference. 839 U.S. S.Ct. omission, an act or order is classified as Little, Willfong Additionally, unlike Mrs. however, regula- it prohibited was asserting significant a constitu- was not tions. remonstrating or merely tional or Bassil, F.2d 342 In States v. 932 Instead, affirmatively voicing criticism. (4th Cir.1991), held that force the court on Forest to discontinue refused not an element of interference where was aby land when ordered to do so Service that a the statute stated one committed acting under color of a shut forest officer “assaults, resists, im- felony opposes, if he that Will- down order. It is self-evident or with ... pedes, intimidates interferes when fong’s refusal to shut down Crabtree any penal or any employee officer or of Allen- ordered to do so interfered with 932 F.2d at 345. correctional institution.” attempt dorf s to shut it down. usurp the The court stated: “We decline to that force is an ele- Willfong’s assertion by reading require- function a legislative under 36 C.F.R. ment of “interference” [into ment of forcible resistance the stat- 261.3(a) § Neither the en- is baseless. by stating Id. The court continued ute].” statute, 551, nor the abling 16 U.S.C. or quite possible impede that to “[i]t any regulation itself makes mention actually without interfere with an officer requirement or threatened force as a force using force.” Id. In a 36 for violation of C.F.R. cases decided after fact, Other interference make clear that force that force is not a Little also make clear of interference. required is not element of interference. required element regulation under which Bass, convicted, 261.3(a), F.3d States v. 82 811 falls under United 1303 Cir.1996), example, “threatening,” the court held that terms this series are for “re- therefore, Park obey refusal to and in- sisting,” “intimidating”; driver’s order to “stand still” at Ranger’s Service terference is limited to actions forcible away by walking rear of the similar in nature to threatening, resisting vehicle— to his kicking three times and the door intimidating. or interference with vehicle shut —constituted Ejusdem generis does not apply Ranger’s duties. 82 F.3d 811-12. case. The Ninth Circuit in United States Boone, 416, v. 243 254 See also State Ga. (9th Cir.1993) Hoff, v. 22 222 F.3d exam- (1979), denied, 444 S.E.2d 367 cert. U.S. relationship ined the of the terms “threat- (1979) 898, 206, 100 62 L.Ed.2d 133 S.Ct. ening,” “resisting,” “intimidating,” and “in- (refusal building obey order to vacate terfering” in section held interference); State, constitutes v. Ratliff independent each offense is from the oth- (1974) 256, 211 Ga.App. 133 S.E.2d 192 In Hoff, ers. the defendant was convicted (refusal obey stop attempting order to 261.3(a) intimidating under 36 C.F.R. premises being to enter a searched consti a forest officer at her yelling when she interference); v. City Chicago tutes a ticket and ordering dog issued later (1970), 205, Lynd, 47 Ill.2d 265 N.E.2d 116 22 “go get ’em.” F.3d at 223. The defen- denied, 923, cert. S.Ct. dant on argued appeal magistrate (1971) (refusal obey order L.Ed.2d 662 by focusing “in- judge exclusively erred to clear the street constitutes interfer timidating” “threatening” rather than on ence); Manning, N.J.Super. State “interfering.” proof Id. stated that We (refusal (App.Div.1977) 370 A.2d 499 one of the acts in section obey order to re-enter vehicle consti support reg- could a conviction because the interference); Township East tutes disjunctive” “plainly ulation is stated Malfitano, N.J.Super. Brunswick v. in- prohibits “[threatening, resisting, (refusal (App.Div.1970) 260 A.2d 862 timidating, interfering” with a forest obey provide order to one’s name and regulation officer. Id. To read the other- interference). address constitutes stated, wise, “patent the court would be a argued It has been that the doctrine of 261.3(a).” misreading of Section Id. This ejusdem generis apply should to construe recently that came to court indicated Hoff ejusdem gen- 36 C.F.R. Under the obvious and correct result. See Unit- eris, general specific where words follow 1065, Taylor, ed v. 258 F.3d 1068 States enumeration, statutory gener words in the (9th Cir.2001) (saying that surpris- “[n]ot only al words are construed to embrace ingly,” proof the court concluded that Hoff objects objects similar in nature to those sup- one of the acts preceding specific enumerated conviction.) ported a words. See Leslie Salt Co. v. United Cir.1990), is consistent with the canons (9th States, 354, 896 F.2d 359 n. 8 Hoff ejus- statutory construction. “The rule of denied, 1126, rt. 498 111 U.S. S.Ct. ce established, firmly is generis, dem while (1991); 1089, 2A 112 L.Ed.2d 1194 see also ascertaining only instrumentality an for SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CON (6th meaning of when there the correct words § 47.17 at STRUCTION 273-74 States, ed.2000). uncertainty.” v. United Gooch argument goes The as follows: 395, 124, 128, 80 L.Ed. 297 U.S. 56 S.Ct. general “Interference” is a term at the end series, (1936); v. specific prior specific of the and the 522 Federal Trade Comm’n prosecuted Inc., 1036, person a not to be 149 F.3d MTK Mktg., of, denied, 1139, for, a crime that he did Cir.1998), and convicted 525 U.S. cert. (1999); 1028, Leslie 143 L.Ed.2d 38 not commit. S.Ct. Co., meaning at The 359.

Salt word, of the the court meaning As to the and there term “interference” is clear dictionary and fol- popular college cites a addition, ejusdem uncertainty. is no thirty-year-old a case tell- upit lows defeat the obvi cannot “be use to generis definition. ing us that the word needs no Gooch, 297 purpose legislation.” ous attention than meaning The deserves more 395; 56 S.Ct. see also United U.S. that. 680, 683, 70 S.Ct. Alpers, 338 U.S. (1950) (refusing apply 94 L.Ed. 457 the definitions following The summarizes it grounds that ejusdem generis on the Third New Inter- to be found Webster’s legisla of the purpose defeat the would (1981): Dictionary national tion). apply ejusdem generis here To (from Latin etymology giving After purpose defeat the broad strike), dictionary inter and the use of regulation, regulate which is to ferire “to one as the first definition strike gives them preserve national forests and to walking against opposite foot foot 43 F.3d at Ryberg, from destruction. of horses.” Definition running esp. penal statutes are Finally, 1334. “while —used collision; in opposi- 2 is “to come to be construed, require does not narrowly purposes: to run at cross Clash”. rejection of that sense of words which tion; in the con- part Definition 3 is “to take the context and the best harmonizes with Intermeddle, Gooch, Interpose, 56 cerns of others: end view.” Def- Intervene.” Definition is obsolete. S.Ct. reciprocally so as to inition 5 is “to act regulation, The diminish, one augment, or otherwise affect and we decline to does not refer force Definition 6 is another —used of waves.” force require physical read the rule to substantially claim the same inven- “to an officer’s be used to interfere with player: tion.” Definition 7 is “of football log- By actively refusing duties. (a) (b) to run ahead of the ballcarrier the forest ging, Willfong interfered with illegally attempt player to hinder down ability officer’s to enforce shut make a fair catch.” pass receive a light order at Crabtree. Viewed a rea- prosecution, most favorable to the etymology of “interfere” —its deri- fact find that Will- sonable trier of could every vation “strike” —and one of its official fong interfered with Allendorfs meanings, examples well as the several as Arbo, duties. 691 F.2d at 866. See by dictionary, furnished show usage of an action of

that “to interfere” is to take some kind. IV. CONCLUSION Willfong charged what sense judgment The of the district court is interfering? with We can be certain that AFFIRMED. charged pass he was not with interference a wave or imitating or with a horse or NOONAN, Judge, dissenting: Circuit a to an invention. That asserting conceiv- meanings leaves two of “interfere” appeal At one level the issue on is the word; him. It would be diffi- deeper ably applicable level it is meaning of on tution, Library in of “taking part” Congress, him as the Presi- cult to describe Trust, in intermeddling City concerns or dio and the Oklahoma Allendorfs them. Most Memorial The ignoring Library Congress them when he was Trust. of then, likely, “interfere” his indictment and the Smithsonian Institution do not collision, prohibitions to be in interfering meant to “come into have on with their cross-purposes.” require to run at The officers but obedience to opposition, autho- And, equivalents point personnel. to rized problem exception is these with the Service, doing action the one the interference. of the Forest each of the five clash,” capital provisions in definition services that have prohibiting “To which signifies synonym, equally interfering to be a an with their officers also have referring part provisions explicitly require active verb to action on obedience clashing. the one to their officers: 261.3(a), period immediately preceding In the Forest Service: 36 C.F.R. arrest, was, any “... with prohibits: words forest officer, arresting “compliant throughout engaged performance officer in ... perfect gentleman.” protection, ... a How can one his official duties im- with an officer clashing provement, be or administration the Na- ...” behaving perfect gentle- System (passed when one is like a tional Forest 1984). testimony chapter man? In fact the of the officer amended 1981 and Willfong responded covering is that to the officer’s the Forest Service contains no just by saying nothing; provision prohibiting order he didn’t disobedience of a for- I obey. quote To Allendorf: “And don’t est officer. actually gave me a an- believe verbal National Park Service: may He have nodded his head one swer. 2.32, “Interfering agency is titled with other, I

way or the but don’t recall which.” (a)(1) “... Subpart prohibits functions.” misleadingly— opinion quite The court’s — intimidating, intentionally interfering attempts give color to its conclusion government employee with ... a ... en- men. He quoting Willfong’s shout duty” in an gaged (passed official charged saying was not these words. 1987). However, amended They occurred after his arrest. 2.32(a)(2) additionally explicitly prohibits “ extraordinarily [violating govern- In the court’s strained the lawful order of interpretation, equated employee “to interfere” is ment ... authorized to maintain obey during “to fail That ... ... law enforcement ac- officer.” order meaning only contrary plain tions ...” is not “interfere,”

meaning of it is at war with Army Corps Engineers: 36 C.F.R. read as a whole. titled “Interference with Gov- makes it a crime to Regula- employees,” Title 36 of the Code of Federal ernment “Parks, Forests, tions, employee ... Prop- and Public “... interfere with Army Corps Engineers erty,” chapters. has fifteen Seven of them for using engaged performance services law en- in the of his or her relate federal (b) Subpart goes ...” on to forcement officers or other officials who official duties public: clarify comply Park that: “Failure to with supervise the Service, Service, employee Army the Forest lawful order issued Federal acting pursuant regulations in this Corps Engineers, the Smithsonian Insti- beyond far interfering, goes the court interference from considered as part shall be creating regulation function in its engaged while employee with that obey” and “interfere.” equates “failure their official duties.” performance 2000). Later, chapter (passed man. Duane A. is an innocent (about a different set point makes a similar arrested, and con- prosecuted been He has 331.16 states: regulations). Section To af- literally doing nothing. victed for em- “Interference with Government compelled court is firm his conviction the her official in the conduct of his or ployee contrary a definition to construct administration of pertaining to the duties dictionary contrary reg- to the federal It is prohibited. these pre- the offense. The ulations that define comply fail with a lawful violation to injus- unfortunate. The cedent created is by any government employ- order directed palpable. tice done is 1983). (passed ...” ee 1002.32, Trust: 36 C.F.R. § ti- Presidio functions,” agency “Interfering

tled with 2.32, exactly governing lands

mirrors Service, prohibit- National Park

under the interference, also, separately, pro-

ing of an offi-

hibiting violating a lawful order 1998). (passed

cial City National Memorial

Oklahoma

Trust: 36 C.F.R. adopts 1501.1 2.32 I, regulating the National Chapter Service, “in- incorporating

Park both the explicit provision pro- and the

terference” COSTA, Plaintiff- prohibiting violating vision the lawful or- F. Catharina 2000). Appellee, (passed der of an official Smithsonian Institution: § 504.4 visitors at the Smithsoni- requires PALACE, INC., dba Caesars DESERT “comply an Institution to Casino, Palace & Defendant- Hotel directions of authorized individuals.” Sec- Appellant. same, on the requires

tion 520.5 Zoological grounds of the Smithsonian’s No. 99-15645. 1968). prohi- Park There is no (passed an officer. bition on “interference” with Appeals, Court of Ninth Circuit. Congress: Library 702.3(a)(2) requires “complying] 19, 2001. Dec. police or of other any lawful order of ...” (passed individuals authorized ORDER 1987). prohibition There is no on “inter- SCHROEDER, Judge. ference” with an officer. Chief drafting majority careful the vote of a of nonre- Upon the face of this court,1 of this obey regular judges active repeatedly distinguishes failure to cused

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Duane A. Willfong

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 21, 2001

Citation: 274 F.3d 1297

Docket Number: 00-10227

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.