of Chincoteague, visitors are not authorized to remove anything from the refuge other than seashells and the personal property that they themselves brought with them to the refuge." Appellant’s Br. 8. While this may indeed be the practice on Chincoteague, there is no evidence on the record to support such a specific interpretation of the regulation. 7 . The Court reviews the District Court’s interpretation of an administrative regulation de novo. See Lofton, 233 F.3d at 317. 8 . The Court need not address the issue of whether abandonment of private property on public land vests title in the government so as to convert such private property into public property, since Tait was not tried for removal of public property. See, e.g., United States v. Shivers, 96 F.3d 120, 124 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) when the property at issue is embedded in the
holding that fraud claim requires proof that the defendant made a material representation that was false holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence holding that it is not holding that it may not holding that 1