United States, 780 F.2d 198, 199 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1985). While civilians were also allowed in the club, this did not vitiate the benefit provided to appellant through the club by virtue of his military service. Appellant was subject to military discipline and control while at the club. As the district court noted, the uncontradict-ed evidence in this case shows that the club is under the operational control of the Fort Riley base commander. The commander has the authority to suspend, ter- mínate or deny privileges of servicemen to participate in such activities if he deems it in the best interests of the activity, the installation, or the Army. Numerous Army regulations govern the establishment and operation of nonappropriated fund instru-mentalities such as the club. See also id. at 199 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that this case more closely
holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations holding that a conviction for receiving stolen property based on possession must be vacated because it involved the same act constituting theft based on retaining property holding that courts must defer to executive branch regulations implementing statutes so long as agencys regulation is based on a permissible construction of the statute holding based on army regulations that club constituting nonappropriated fund instrumentality was under military regulation and control holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended