judgment of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”) dismissing his claim that his constitutional rights were violated during the contempt proceedings eonduet- ed by the CNMI Superior Court. Under 48 U.S.C. § 1824, our jurisdiction over appeals from the CNMI Supreme Court is limited to “cases involving the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.” We review de novo claims of due process violations, Bird v. Glacier Elec. Coop., Inc., 255 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm. The CNMI Supreme Court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s original imposition of sanctions was based on local law, so we lack jurisdiction to review that conclusion. See Milne v. Hillblom, 165 F.3d 733, 736 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Cushnie may not raise in this court
recognizing that this test applies in every federal circuit save the fourth and the ninth holding ninth circuit will not impose a federal question when valid provisions of local law justify cnmi supreme court decision holding that an intervening change in state law allowed a result that would otherwise be inconsistent with a prior ninth circuit decision holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that the supreme courts decision in jones v united states 529 us 848 120 sct 1904 146 led2d 902 2000 did not effect a material change in the law but only clarified a prior supreme court decision and two ninth circuit opinions consistent with joness holding