distinction between tribal trust land and reservations for the purpose of tribal sovereign immunity. See Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 498 U.S. at 511, 111 S.Ct. 905. This view is consonant with other federal court holdings that an Indian reservation includes trust lands. See United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 649, 98 S.Ct. 2541, 57 L.Ed.2d 489 (1978) (finding “no apparent reason” why lands held in trust should not be considered a “reservation” under § 1151(a)); HRI, Inc. v. EPA, 198 F.3d 1224, 1249-54 (10th Cir.2000) (same); United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336, 339 (8th Cir.1986) (considering tribal trust land to be Indian country under either § 1151(a) as a “de facto” reservation or § 1151(b) as a dependent Indian community); United States v. Sohappy, 770 F.2d 816, 822-23 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners note that, for several years, EPA
holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding that trust land is a reservation under  1151a holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust recognizing general proposition that if land is artificially submerged for the statutory period necessary to change ownership of the land title to the submerged land is passed to the state in trust for the public holding that the oneida tribe could not unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over land through openmarket purchases from current titleholders even though the land had previously been reservation land