Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BELLE COMPANY, L.L.C.; Kent Recycling Services, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant-Appellee
    No. 13-30262
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 07/29/2016
    Murphy J. Foster, III, Esq., John Baird King, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P., Jeremy S. LaCombe, Esq., LaCombe Law Firm, L.L.C., John Dale Powers, Powers, Sellers, Mixon & Chapoton, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Robert Joel Lundman, Aaron Peter Avila, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division-Appellate Section, Christina L. Richmond, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, John Joseph Gaupp, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Malcolm Reed Hopper, Esq., Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for Ami-cus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HIGGjlNSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court, No. 14-493, Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Supreme Court vacated our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of the claims before it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded this case to us for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1807, 195 L.Ed.2d 77 (2016). Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal and REMAND this case to the district court for the Middle District of Louisiana for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.