1738[the Full Faith and Credit Act]”); see also Commissioners of Road Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 257 U.S. 547, 557-558, 42 S.Ct. 250, 66 L.Ed. 364 (1922) ("[t]he question of removal under the federal statute is one for the consideration of the federal court. It is not concluded by the view of a state court as to what is a suit within the statute”). 29 . See Botosan, 216 F.3d at 831; In re Jackson, 184 F.3d at 1051. 30 . See Frize, Inc., 167 F.3d at 1265. 31 . 135 U.S. 467, 10 S.Ct. 651, 34 L.Ed. 196 (1890). 32 . Id. at 470-71, 10 S.Ct. 651. 33 . Id. at 471, 10 S.Ct. 651. 34 . Id. 35 . Sun Buick, 26 F.3d at 1263. 36 . See generally Upshur County, 135 U.S. at 470-72, 10 S.Ct. 651. 37 . Sierra Club v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 834 F.2d 1517, 1525 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 38 . See 28 U.S.C. §
holding that a state agency proceeding did not constitute an action in a court of the united states or a state within the meaning of 33 usc  1365b1 holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that the state police is a state agency holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver