The following opinions designated for publication were released by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 7-9, 2009:

• Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. v. Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela (Reavley, Barksdale, Garza, JJ.; opinion by Garza, J.) (appeal from S.D. Miss.) (settlement enforcement). Reversing district court’s judgment to enforce settlement, and remanding for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider Venezuela’s offer of the text of certain Venezuelan statutes regarding Venezuelan agency law on the basis that Venezuela’s Rule 44.1 notice was 18 months late, where there was no showing of prejudice to the other parties by the delay; that the district court did not err in selecting Mississippi law as the law governing the dispute; that the Mississippi Supreme Court would give effect to Venezuelan laws prescribing the procedure by which agency authority is to be conferred; and that, under the Venezuelan statutes, the district court clearly erred in determining that Venezuela’s attorney had actual authority to enter into the settlement agreement.
• Paredes v. Quarterman (Smith, Wiener, Owen, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from W.D. Tex.) (habeas appeal - ineffective assistance of counsel). Affirming the district court’s denial of habeas relief; but granting a certificate of appealability on additional issues. The Fifth Circuit held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to raise Confrontation Clause objections, because the petitioner could not show prejudice from any violation in the face of overwhelming other evidence to support his conviction; denied to extend a COA on the petitioner’s claim that there was not a fair cross-section of the community represented in the grand jury pool due to disproportionate representation of the hispanic community, finding that claim procedurally defaulted; held that the petitioner failed to make a showing of prejudice on additional IAC claims regarding jury shuffling, failure to object to a special instruction not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the lack of mitigating circumstance; but held that the petitioner was entitled to a COA on the IAC claim regarding whether his trial counsel should have objected to the failure to require the jury to make a unanimous finding as to which victim’s death for which it found the petitioner responsible.
• Frame v. City of Arlington (Jolly, Prado, Southwick, JJ.; opinion by Jolly, J.; partial dissent by Prado, J.) (appeal from N.D. Tex.) (ADA, statute of limitations). Vacating the judgment of the district court that the plaintiffs’ Americans with Disabilities Act (”ADA”) claims against the city for failure to have ADA-compliant curbs, sidewalks, and other infrastructure had expired under the Texas’s two-year statute of limitations. The Fifth Circuit held that the ADA did cover the plaintiffs’ claims as the sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots were a “service” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA; that the two-year statute of limitations under Texas law applied to the plaintiffs’ ADA Title II claims for injunctive relief; that the statute of limitations would be triggered by the completion of the construction of the features at issue, and would not be subject to the continuing violations doctrine; but that the burden to prove the date of completion of the noncompliant construction was on the city, not the plaintiffs. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court to hear evidence regarding whether the city could meet this burden. Judge Prado dissented, opining that the statute of limitations should not be triggered until a plaintiff actually incurs injury due to a noncompliant feature.
• Longhi v. Lithium Power Technologies, Inc. (Higginbotham, Benavides, Stewart, JJ.; opinion by Stewart, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (False Claims Act). Affirming the district court’s judgment of liability on the False Claims Act, award of $5 million, and award of attorneys’ fees to the qui tam plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding of FCA liability where the defendant’s government grant application contained numerous misrepresentations that affected the government’s decision to award the grant to the defendant; that the district court did not err in finding that the entire amount of the grant was the basis for the FCA’s treble damages calculation; and that enforcement of a release and indemnification agreement between the defendant and the qui tam plaintiff was against public policy.
• Petroleum Pipe Americas Corp. v. Jindal Saw Ltd. (Jones, C.J., Wiener, Benavides, JJ.; opinion by Benavides, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (arbitration). Affirming district court’s denial of judgment denying motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The Fifth Circuit held that, even assuming arguendo that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration clause, the defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process to the detriment of the plaintiff.
• South Texas Electrical Cooperative v. Dresser-Rand Co. (Jones, C.J., Higginbotham, Haynes, JJ.; opinion by Haynes, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (warranty claim). Affirming judgment based on jury verdict that defendant was liable for plaintiff’s repair costs incurred as a result of the defendant’s failure to fulfill warranty obligations. The Fifth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict; and that the district court did not err in its formulation of the jury questionnaire.
• U.S. v. Garcia-Quintanilla (Higginbotham, Garza, Prado, JJ.; opinion by Prado, J.) (appeal from W.D. Tex.) (immigration appeal - sentencing). Vacating the district court’s sentence of the defendant on conviction of failure to make the acquire the requisite travel documents following an order of removal, to the statutory maximum of four years’ imprisonment subject to a later suspension of sentence should the defendant agree to interview with Salvadoran consular officials. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s above-Guidelines-range sentence was based on the erroneous belief under the Probation Act that it could suspend the remainder of the sentence after the sentence had begun, upon the defendant’s subsequent agreement to interview with consular officials to arrange for his removal.
• State Industrial Products Corp. v. Beta Technology Inc. (Smith, Garza, Clement, JJ.; opinion by Garza, J.) (appeal from S.D. Miss.) (discovery rule, contempt). Affirming in part and vacating in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and remanding for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations was applicable to the plaintiff’s business tort claims, and that the discovery rule was inapplicable because the alleged actions of the defendant were reasonably discoverable; and that the district court erred with regard to the plaintiff’s contempt claim by failing to apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 to determine if the defendant - which was not a party to a prior consent judgment - was bound by the injunctive provisions of the consent judgment.
• Keenan v. Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. (Jones, C.J., Higginbotham, Haynes, JJ.; opinion by Haynes, J.) (appeal from E.D. La.) (prescription). Affirming in part and reversing in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants on Louisiana prescription grounds, and remanding for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s detrimental reliance claims were based on a breach of promise, rather than a breach of duty, and that the district court therefore erred in applying Louisiana one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions rather than the ten-year period applicable to contract claims; that the district court’s summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary claims should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a fiduciary relationship; and that the prescriptive period did not start on a fraud claim until the plaintiff knew or should have had knowledge, not just of the defendant’s failure to perform, but of the defendant’s present intention to not perform at the time of the promise.

Additionally, the Court released 22 unpublished opinions on July 6-9, 2009.