### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30025 Summary Calendar
AMOS CHAUVIN, and wife, Plaintiff–Appellant v. ANTILL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ANTILL PIPELINE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ANTILL PIPELINE CORPORATION; ANTILL PIPELINE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendants–Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09–CV–5923
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Louisiana seaman Amos Chauvin and his wife Katina Chauvin appeal from the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants–Appellees Antill Pipeline Construction Co. and others (“Antill”). Chauvin contends that the district court failed to render judgment o n o n e of his claims—specifically, his Jones Act claim for large r m ai ntenance and cure payments—and thus, the court’s judgment “does not dispos e o f al l claims asserted in the district court U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 26, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30025 Document: 00511584823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2011No. 11-30025

below.” The district court denied Chauvin’s motion for a new trial, see F E D . R. C IV . P. 59(a)(2), in which he made this same assertion, among others. The parties do not dispute that Chauvin was receiving maintenance and

cure payments from Antill at the time of trial. The crux of Chauvin’s claim on 1 appeal, like his Rule 59 motion in the district court, concerns the sufficiency of those payments. But, as the district court correctly observed, the sufficiency of Antill’s maintenance and cure payments was never an issue for trial. See Order and Op., Dkt. 1 5 6 , at 3. Although Chauvin’s complaint originally alleged that Antill failed in its duty to pay maintenance and cure “in full,” no issue is raised in regard to the sufficiency o f th e maintenance and cure payments in the proposed pretrial order submitted by the parties or the final pretrial order entered by the court. The pretrial order, not Chauvin’s complaint, defined the issues left for trial. See Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co. , 225 F.3d 595, 604 (5 th C i r . 2 000). Here, the district court’s judgment properly disposed of those issues identified in the pretrial order and tried to the court. Chauvin’s appeal is wholly without merit. While we have the discretion to penalize such appeals by awarding “just damages and single or double costs to the appellee,” F E D
. R. AP P
. P. 38, we are also mindful of the chilling effect that the imposition of sanctions could have on other litigants, see Abbs v. Principi , 237 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and we decline to impose sanctions at this t i m e . Chauvin’s attorneys, Jack W. Harang and Martina E. Cartwight, are WARNED that frivolous appeals in the future will not be tolerated. AFFIRMED.

See Pl s . ’ O r i gi n a l Com pl. , Dk t. 1, at 7 (“ De fen dant s are only paying him $245. 00 a 1 we ek , but this is far les s than one half of wh at he earn ed at his regula r sal ary as a Capt ain on thei r vess el bef

orebe ing i njured .” ). 2 Case: 11-30025 Document: 00511584823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2011