Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for equitable relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act

No question identified. : EGawWsH ok Pet. ; a O BALE, et ML, US, SLPREME COAT Sa ee EO RENE QD. G_ Ie Niveo awn ey eaeveerion wer (rem) te vse $$ 240, 2HOWKE, 29044) 270) AREAL ws SET OF DHE ZHE E43 1214,1233 (IO RBON, ereRK v.ReOGOx 612 £94950,532 (FON), — GE dAneR FRAT FROTECTB ACT COREA) BUsESVILETSeQ ; _ DANUSTORON 4 SUMTLNES T44 E04 494 (a" 008) + PAE Hy, COME VES ESET TIS (9-NE AREY . no SEMNE GAL ATING 695 Fa gaa CM romeneaney oo os =. ASA ARISES 08 LAW, CAKOA IS EETTLED To Cdurt ape RELEE tem 1B ude Srq role) + SLA) eonsigien w| ~ --ARR Rob LAY ¥ SARCEMSEANUS = TAO, CQEUN, + PERN IMUNETOLE RELIEE, VECLABRTORY JUDG NENT) ; HWEUSE THE SANE EOUTABLE AEUEE 18 DoveLy AFFORDED Fem Buse Sau ETeR. comesrERT of _ SAMLSTRON + SUMTUNES + SENNE WPALATIC’, THE USOE-NTIL OOM, ABD USEAT UERE FLATLY URERe Te ASSERT Heed HUATR GEN AS Banned RELIC, AUEM Lege THAT GAMOERS EOUTABE RELEE IS AMIS: ~ SAPTBE eo, NOTIN I LUNE.” WRETOABY FARCAEUL OBSEETNE Ly URRENSOMROR.