Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that a barge that housed workers was a vessel. 133 S.Ct. at 743. Moreover, after issuing its decision in Lozman, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to the appellant in Mendez v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, discussed supra, who sought to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s determination that the Red Hawk was not a vessel. — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 979, 184 L.Ed.2d 760 (2013). The denial of the writ does not establish the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the holding in Mendez. Nevertheless, it is worth noting since the Supreme Court, that same day, cited Lozman in vacating a judgment concerning the vessel status of a casino boat. — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 979, 184 L.Ed.2d 760 (2013) (remanding Lemelle v. St. Charles Gaming Company, Inc., 118 So.3d 1, No. 11-255, 2012 WL 130351 (La.Ct.App. Jan. 4, 2012) (<HOLDING>)). The Court therefore finds that the Supreme 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that regulatory ban on drift gillnet fishing was not a taking of fishing vessel and gear (B) holding that floating casino was not a covered situs (C) holding that shoreside quarterboat barge serving as floating hotel was not a vessel (D) holding that riverboat casino was not a vessel (E) holding that a ship with inoperable engines and no ability to selfpropel was a vessel because it had residual navigational capacity
Output (English): holding that regulatory ban on drift gillnet fishing was not a taking of fishing vessel and gear