The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 7, 2008:

• Silvercreek Management Inc. v. Banc of America Securities LLC v. Regents of University of California (Smith, Prado, Ludlum, JJ.; opinion by Smith, J.). Affirming district court’s denial of motion to extend class action opt-out deadline as to appellants Silvercreek. The lawsuits arose from the collapse of Enron, with the California Board of Regents designated as lead counsel. The court certified a settlement class for a $69 million settlement; Silvercreek did not appear at the hearing for objections to the proposed class settlement. Silvercreek did not respond pursuant to the opt-out deadline, and, after final approval of the settlement, moved for an extension of the opt-out period; the district court denied the motion, finding that Silvercreek had failed to show excusable neglect. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and that Silvercreek’s counsel had adequate notice of the opt-out date.
• Essinger v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Davis, Southwick, Clark, JJ.; opinion by Southwick, J.) (on petition for panel rehearing). Denying petition for panel rehearing, holding that the issue of the plaintiffs’ entitlement to extracontractual damages had been waived when they dropped the issue in the summary judgment briefing and neglected to brief it, as well, in the appeal briefing.
• Moore v. Quarterman (Reavley, Smith, Barksdale, JJ.; opinion by Smith, J.) (different case from the recent en banc decision of the same title). Denying petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability from district court’s denial of habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit held that no reasonable jurist could conclude that a Brady violation existed; and that no reasonable jurist could conclude that the Brady claim was not procedurally defaulted because the petitioner had not shown cause and prejudice for failure to raise the claim until his successive state postconviction relief petition. The Court also held that a COA should not issue on the issue of whether the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated by references during his second trial to the first trial of the petitioner; and on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.