The opinion published at 357 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.2004) filed on February 4, 2004 is amended so that footnote 20 should read: In so holding, we necessarily determine that no reasonable person could conclude on this record that Kennewick Man is “Native American” under NAG-PRA. See Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 366-67, 118 S.Ct. 818, 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998) (<HOLDING>). With this amendment, the Petition for
holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude an agency finding of no discrimination on the ground that the report would suggest to the jury that it should reach the same conclusion as the agency holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion holding that under the substantial evidence standard the reviewing court must decide whether on this record it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the agencys conclusion holding that in reviewing a jury instruction this court must review the entire instruction and look at all the evidence on the record to determine whether there was error and whether that error prejudiced the complaining party