The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 22, 2008:

• U.S. v. Gonzalez-Terrazas (Garza, Stewart, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Garza, J.; Owen, J., concurring). Granting petition for panel rehearing by the government, withdrawing original panel opinion (at 516 F.3d 357), and replacing with new opinion. The Fifth Circuit vacates the defendant’s sentence and remands for resentencing, where that sentence included a sixteen-level enhancement on the basis that a prior conviction on the California crime of residential burglary was a “crime of violence.” The Fifth Circuit held that the defendant’s prior conviction did not qualify as the enumerated offense of “burglary of a dwelling” under the Court’s categorical approach; and that the district court’s use of the “crime of violence” enhancement constituted plain error.
• McLaurin v. Noble Drilling (US), Inc. (Garwood, Clement, Elrod, JJ.; opinion by Clement, J.). Reversing district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant on issue that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (”LHWCA”). The plaintiff was a shipyard employee who was injured while working on scaffolding approximately 200 feet from a mobile offshore drilling unit, a vessel that was moored in the shipyard while being converted for deep water use; the plaintiff was working on pontoon extensions to be used in the conversion, and was injured when a shell for the pontoon fell from an unattended crane and crushed his arm. The plaintiff received compensation from the shipyard owner through the LHWCA, then sued Noble Drilling as the vessel’s owner alleging, among other claims, state law tort claims. The district court granted summary judgment to Noble on the basis that the state law tort claims were preempted by § 905(b) of the LHWCA.  The Fifth Circuit held that a state-law claim for negligence against the vessel owner may be maintained when no claim against the vessel may be maintained under LHWCA § 905(b); that a non-employer vessel owner is not analogous in status under the LHWCA to an employer; and that “[t]he plain language of [LHWCA] § 933 clearly contemplates and preserves a maritime worker’s ability to pursue separate claims against third parties, including vessel owners allegedly responsible for the injury.”