for the Imperial' Sand Dunes Recreation Area. In 2009, Plaintiff was riding his off-road motorcycle across that roadway when he was seriously injured by a contingent on funding priorities, the record contains no evidence that this was the government’s reason for failing to post any signs. See Marlys Bear Med. v. U.S. ex rel. Sec’y of Dep’t of Interior, 241 F.3d 1208, 1216 (9th Cir.2001) (“There must be reasonable support in the record for a court to find, without imposing its own conjecture, that a decision was policy-based or susceptible to policy analysis.”)- The government retained some discretion as to how to post the 15 MPH signs, but its failure to post any such signs is not a protected exercise of discretion. See Navarette v. United States, 500 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 2. The district court erred when it held that
holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that agency retained discretion to alter its course under a regulation provided it gave a reasonable explanation for doing so holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark holding that even though the government retained discretion as to how to mark or fence dropoffs it did not retain discretion whether to do so