Louisiana Crawfish Producers v. Amerada Hess Corporation, et al
Filing
PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-30299 Affirmed 13-30338 Affirmed 13-30341 Affirmed 13-30345 Affirmed 13-30346 Affirmed 13-30347 Affirmed 13-30349 Affirmed 13-30352 Affirmed 13-30353 Affirmed 13-30354 Affirmed 13-30355 Affirmed 13-30356 Affirmed 13-30367 Affirmed 13-30370 Affirmed 13-30371 Affirmed 13-30372 Affirmed 13-30375 Affirmed 13-30376 Affirmed 13-30382 Affirmed 13-30383 Affirmed 13-30385 Affirmed 13-30387 Affirmed 13-30393 Affirmed 13-30394 Affirmed 13-30395 Affirmed 13-30397 Affirmed 13-30399 Affirmed 13-30400 Affirmed 13-30401 Affirmed 13-30403 Affirmed 13-30404 Affirmed 13-30405 Affirmed 13-30406 Affirmed 13-30407 Affirmed 13-30408 Affirmed 13-30409 Affirmed 13-30410 Affirmed 13-30419 Affirmed 13-30420 Affirmed 13-30421 Affirmed 13-30424 Affirmed 13-30425 Affirmed 13-30426 Affirmed 13-30428 Affirmed 13-30430 Affirmed 13-30432 Affirmed 13-30433 Affirmed 13-30434 Affirmed 13-30435 Affirmed 13-30436 Affirmed 13-30437 Affirmed 13-30439 Affirmed 13-30440 Affirmed 13-30441 Affirmed 13-30442 Affirmed 13-30443 Affirmed 13-30444 Affirmed 13-30446 Affirmed 13-30447 Affirmed 13-30448 Affirmed 13-30454 Affirmed 13-30456 Affirmed 13-30460 Affirmed 13-30462 Affirmed 13-30463 Affirmed 13-30465 Affirmed 13-30466 Affirmed 13-30467 Affirmed 13-30468 Affirmed 13-30469 Affirmed 13-30470 Affirmed 13-30482 Affirmed 13-30485 Affirmed 13-30486 Affirmed 13-30487 Affirmed 13-30497 Affirmed 13-30499 Affirmed 13-30506 Affirmed 13-30523 Affirmed 13-30525 Affirmed 13-30526 Affirmed 13-30533 Affirmed 13-30535 Affirmed 13-30539 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: RHB , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 12/15/2014 [13-30299, 13-30338, 13-30341, 13-30345, 13-30346, 13-30347, 13-30349, 13-30352, 13-30353, 13-30354, 13-30355, 13-30356, 13-30367, 13-30370, 13-30371, 13-30372, 13-30375, 13-30376, 13-30382, 13-30383, 13-30385, 13-30387, 13-30393, 13-30394, 13-30395, 13-30397, 13-30399, 13-30400, 13-30401, 13-30403, 13-30404, 13-30405, 13-30406, 13-30407, 13-30408, 13-30409, 13-30410, 13-30419, 13-30420, 13-30421, 13-30424, 13-30425, 13-30426, 13-30428, 13-30430, 13-30432, 13-30433, 13-30434, 13-30435, 13-30436, 13-30437, 13-30439, 13-30440, 13-30441, 13-30442, 13-30443, 13-30444, 13-30446, 13-30447, 13-30448, 13-30454, 13-30456, 13-30460, 13-30462, 13-30463, 13-30465, 13-30466, 13-30467, 13-30468, 13-30469, 13-30470, 13-30482, 13-30485, 13-30486, 13-30487, 13-30497, 13-30499, 13-30506, 13-30523, 13-30525, 13-30526, 13-30533, 13-30535, 13-30539]
<![CDATA[
Case: 13-30299
Document: 00512846875
Page: 1
Date Filed: 11/24/2014
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
November 24, 2014
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW
Regarding:
Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing
or Rehearing En Banc
No. 13-30299, et al
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
In Re: Louisiana Crawfish Producers
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
6:10-CV-348
6:12-CV-193
6:12-CV-247
6:12-CV-248
6:12-CV-195
6:12-CV-196
6:12-CV-198
6:12-CV-197
6:12-CV-199
6:12-CV-200
6:12-CV-201
6:12-CV-249
6:12-CV-265
6:12-CV-250
6:12-CV-251
6:12-CV-266
6:12-CV-267
6:12-CV-268
6:12-CV-203
6:12-CV-252
6:12-CV-253
6:12-CV-254
6:12-CV-204
6:12-CV-205
6:12-CV-206
6:12-CV-207
6:12-CV-209
6:12-CV-208
6:12-CV-210
6:12-CV-269
6:12-CV-270
6:12-CV-255
6:12-CV-256
6:12-CV-257
6:12-CV-258
6:12-CV-271
6:12-CV-272
6:12-CV-229
6:12-CV-230
6:12-CV-273
6:12-CV-231
Case: 13-30299
Document: 00512846875
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
USDC
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Page: 2
Date Filed: 11/24/2014
6:12-CV-274
6:12-CV-232
6:12-CV-233
6:12-CV-235
6:12-CV-236
6:12-CV-237
6:12-CV-238
6:12-CV-239
6:12-CV-240
6:12-CV-241
6:12-CV-259
6:12-CV-243
6:12-CV-260
6:12-CV-244
6:12-CV-245
6:12-CV-261
6:12-CV-246
6:12-CV-263
6:12-CV-264
6:12-CV-211
6:12-CV-276
6:12-CV-277
6:12-CV-278
6:12-CV-279
6:12-CV-212
6:12-CV-280
6:12-CV-281
6:12-CV-282
6:12-CV-213
6:12-CV-214
6:12-CV-215
6:12-CV-216
6:12-CV-217
6:12-CV-218
6:12-CV-219
6:12-CV-220
6:12-CV-222
6:12-CV-223
6:12-CV-224
6:12-CV-225
6:12-CV-226
6:12-CV-227
6:12-CV-228
--------------------------------------------------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. R.s 35, 39, and 41 govern
costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5TH CIR. R.s 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.
Case: 13-30299
Document: 00512846875
Page: 3
Date Filed: 11/24/2014
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.
Should a rehearing be pursued, we call your attention to the
following guidelines for record citations.
Important notice regarding citations to the record on appeal to
comply with the recent amendment to 5TH CIR. R. 28.2.2.
Parties are directed to use the new ROA citation format in 5TH CIR.
R. 28.2.2 only for electronic records on appeal with pagination
that includes the case number followed by a page number, in the
format "YY-NNNNN.###". In single record cases, the party will use
the shorthand "ROA.###" to identify the page of the record
referenced.
For multi-record cases, the parties will have to
identify which record is cited by using the entire format (for
example, ROA.YY-NNNNN.###).
Parties may not use the new citation formats for USCA5 paginated
records. For those records, parties must cite to the record using
the USCA5 volume and or page number.
In cases with both pagination formats, parties must use the
citation format corresponding to the type of record cited.
Explanation: In 2013, the court adopted the Electronic Record on
Appeal (EROA) as the official record on appeal for all cases in
which the district court created the record on appeal on or after
4 August 2013. Records on appeal created on or after that date
are paginated using the format YY-NNNNN.###. The records on appeal
in some cases contain both new and old pagination formats,
requiring us to adopt the procedures above until fully transitioned
to the EROA.
The recent amendment to 5TH CIR. R. 28.2.2 was adopted to permit a
court developed computer program to automatically insert
hyperlinks into briefs and other documents citing new EROA records
using the new pagination format. This program provides judges a
ready link to pages in the EROA cited by parties.
The court
intended the new citation format for use only with records using
the new EROA pagination format, but the Clerk's Office failed to
explain this limitation in earlier announcements.
The judgment entered provides that appellants pay to appellees the
costs on appeal.
Case: 13-30299
Document: 00512846875
Page: 4
Date Filed: 11/24/2014
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By: _______________________
Jamei R. Cheramie, Deputy Clerk
Enclosure(s)
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
David Mark Bienvenu Jr.
David Sinnott Bland
Phillip Edward Foco
Jana Louise Grauberger
Matthew Guy
Leigh Ann Haynie
Randolph White Hunter
Roger E. Ishee
Joseph R. Joy III
George D. Kappus
William H. L. Kaufman
F. Barry Marionneaux
Thomas M. McNamara
John Thomas Nesser IV
Joe B. Norman
John Michael Parker I
Gordon James Schoeffler
Brendhan Hofmann Thompson
John Allain Viator
Stephen L. Williamson
]]>
