territory that is not punishable by Congress, but that “would be punishable if committed ... within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which such [federal territory] is situated, ... shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.” 18 U.S.C. § 13(a). Thus, although the language and scope of the two statutes is somewhat different, the Assimilative Crimes Act also adopts state laws to define and punish offenses that are not federally defined. See id. We have rejected the notion that the incorporation of state law for the definition of offenses under the Assimilative Crimes Act extends to “the whole criminal and constitutional law” of the state in which the offense occurred. See Smayda v. United States, 352 F.2d 251, 253 (9th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Katz v. United
holding that californias search and seizure laws do not apply in a prosecution under the aca holding that californias antislapp statute is applicable in federal court holding that the new york usury laws do not apply to interest charged on past due debts holding that infringement laws simply do not apply to a nontrademark use of a mark holding that based on  230e2 the cda does not apply to californias statutory and common law right of publicity claims