ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Inc v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-30953 Affirmed] Judge: EMG , Judge: FPB , Judge: BML. Mandate pull date is 11/15/2010 [09-30953]

ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Inc v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-30953

Document: 00511242886

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
September 23, 2010 N o . 09-30953 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

A T P OIL & GAS CORPORATION, INC., P la in t iff - Appellant v. M I N E R A L S MANAGEMENT SERVICE; KEN SALAZAR, Secretary, D e p a r t m e n t of the Interior; MICHAEL R. BROMWICH, Director of the M in e r a ls Management Service; LARS T. HERBST, Regional Director of the G u lf of Mexico OCS Region Minerals as of October 1, 2007; UNITED STATES D E P A R T M E N T OF INTERIOR, D e fe n d a n t s - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:08-CV-1514

B e fo r e GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and LYNN * , District Judge. P E R CURIAM:* * T h is is an appeal from the district court's order granting DefendantA p p e lle e s ' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff-Appellant ATP Oil & Gas

C o r p o r a t io n , Inc., ("ATP") challenges the decision of the Interior Board of Land

*

District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

**

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30953

Document: 00511242886

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

No. 09-30953 A p p e a ls ("Board"), which had affirmed the Minerals Management Service's (" M M S " )1 denial of ATP's request for a Suspension of Operations. For the r e a s o n s stated below, we AFFIRM. W e review a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo, a p p ly in g the same standard to the agency decision as the district court. See H a y w a r d v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 536 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir. 2008). We must u p h o ld an agency decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in a c c o r d a n c e with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Enron Oil & Gas Co. v. Lujan, 978 F .2 d 212, 215 (5th Cir. 1992). W e have reviewed the briefs and record in this case, and heard oral a rg u m en t. We hold that the Board's decision affirming the denial of the

S u s p e n s io n of Operations was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise at odds w it h the law. The MMS followed its regulations in denying ATP's request for a S u s p e n s io n of Operations because ATP did not have an executed drilling-rig c o n t r a c t, an approved Exploration Plan, or an Application for Permit to Drill. A F F IR M E D .

The Department of the Interior has changed the name of MMS to the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement. At oral argument the parties requested, and the panel agreed, to refer to the agency by its former name.

1

2