Petrohawk Properties, L.P. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P., et al


PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-30576 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: PEH , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 08/14/2012 [11-30576]

Download PDF
Case: 11-30576 Document: 00511932079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 United States Court of Appeals FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 July 24, 2012 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW Regarding: Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc No. 11-30576, Petrohawk Properties v. Chesapeake Louisiana USDC No. 5:09-CV-1385 --------------------------------------------------Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision. The court has entered judgment under FED. R. APP. P. 36. (However, the opinion may yet contain typographical or printing errors which are subject to correction.) FED. R. APP. P. 39 through 41, and 5TH CIR. RULES 35, 39, and 41 govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5TH CIR. RULES 35 and 40 require you to attach to your petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc an unmarked copy of the court's opinion or order. Please read carefully the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP's) following FED. R. APP. P. 40 and 5TH CIR. R. 35 for a discussion of when a rehearing may be appropriate, the legal standards applied and sanctions which may be imposed if you make a nonmeritorious petition for rehearing en banc. Direct Criminal Appeals. 5TH CIR. R. 41 provides that a motion for a stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41 will not be granted simply upon request. The petition must set forth good cause for a stay or clearly demonstrate that a substantial question will be presented to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this court may deny the motion and issue the mandate immediately. Pro Se Cases. If you were unsuccessful in the district court and/or on appeal, and are considering filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, you do not need to file a motion for stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41. The issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your right, to file with the Supreme Court. The judgment entered provides that appellant and cross-appellant each pay one half costs on appeal to appellees. Sincerely, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk By:_________________________ Joseph M. Armato, Deputy Clerk 504-310-7651 Case: 11-30576 Document: 00511932079 Enclosure(s) Mr. Michael Beatty Donald Ms. Nicole M. Duarte Ms. Emma J. Hinnigan Mr. Paul Matthew Jones Mr. John M. Madison Jr. Mr. Joshua A. Norris Mr. Jamie Duayne Rhymes Mrs. April Leigh Rolen-Ogden Ms. Krystal P. Scott Mr. Michael Allyn Stroud Mr. Robert I. Thompson III Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2012

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?