With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or interests.” Johnson v. Lodge # 93 of the Fraternal Order of Police, 393 F.3d 1096, 1107 (10th Cir.2004)(citing United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 975 (11th Cir.1998)). The NMCGA has not demonstrated that the Proposed Settlement Agreement imposes any legal obligations on it or adversely affects its legal rights any more than the USFS can always do. The NMCGA contends that the Agreement adversely affects the permittees’ interest in maintaining a secure livestock grazing permit for the challenged allotments. See NMCGA’s Response at 6. Because the USFS has the discretion to modify permits as necessary to protect natural resources, the NMCGA cannot assert a legally cognizable interest in maintaining the current terms and conditions of the permits. See 43 U.S.C. § 1752(a) (<HOLDING>); 36 C.F.R. § 222.4(a) (stating that the USFS

A: recognizing court has authority to modify agreement to cure any unreasonable provision as to duration or scope
B: holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884
C: recognizing the language permitting the enjoining of any claim or demand that is to be paid in whole or in part by a trust does not appear to permit the enjoining of contribution claims
D: recognizing that the usfs has the authority to cancel suspend or modify a grazing permit or lease in whole or in part pursuant to the terms and conditions thereof
D.