IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20152

LA BANQUE SOCIETE GENERALE; LA BANQUE DE NEUFLIZE

SCHLUMBERGER MALLETT,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

BUTAN VALLEY N V,

Defendant-Appellant.

LA BANQUE SOCIETE GENERALE; LA BANQUE DE NEUFLIZE

SCHLUMBERGER MALLETT,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

SHEIKH ABDILLAH OTHMAN ABDULLAH AL-KASABI,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-20153

LA BANQUE SOCIETE GENERALE; LA BANQUE DE NEUFLIZE

SCHLUMBERGER MALLETT,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

BUTAN VALLEY N V,

Defendant-Appellant.

LA BANQUE SOCIETE GENERALE; LA BANQUE DE NEUFLIZE

SCHLUMBERGER MALLETT,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2001).

2 SHEIKH ABDILLAH OTHMAN ABDULLAH AL-KASABI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CV-2118 & H-99-CV-560)

May 24, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellees contend that Appellants filed premature notices of

appeal, depriving this Court of jurisdiction. We agree and now

dismiss these appeals.

The appeals before this Court were not taken from a final

appealable judgment. 1 The district court's January 21, 2000 orders

did not resolve Appellees' claims for declaratory judgment and

enforcement of the arbitration award against Butan Valley. Nor did

the Febru ary 4, 2000 "Final Judgment" finally dispose of the

remaining issues and parties, as the district court later

recognized. The court also did not enter a certification under Rule

54 or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).2 See Pan Eastern Exploration Co. v. Hufo Oils

, 798 F.2d 837,

839 (5th Cir. 1986).

3 See id.

4 FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Inv estors Mortgage Co. , 498 U.S.

269, 276 (1991).

5 Appellees contend that even this order lacked the requisite

finality. We need not decide this question, however, as the appeals

must be dismissed regardless.

3 The "extraordinarily limited" scope of the collateral doctrine

provides no refuge for Ap pellants. 2 Enforcement of the award

against Al-Kasabi does not resol ve an issue completely separate

from the merits of the declaratory judgment and enforcement claims

asserted against Butan Valley. For instance, Appellees' alter ego

argument is central to their respon se to Appellants' contention

that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over AlKasabi. In addition, the merits of the confirmation order could be

revie wed on appeal alongside the declaratory judgment and

enforcement claims. 3

Subsequent actions taken by the district court did not "cure"

these defects. Rule 4(a)(2) of the F ederal Rules of Appellate

Procedure "permits a notice of appeal from a non-final decision to

operate as a notice of appeal from the final judgment only when a

district court announces a decision that would be appealable if

immediately followed by the entry of judgment." 4 The court's Order

for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2001 ostensibly disposed of the

remaini ng issues in these cases. 5 However, this order was not6 See United States v. Cooper , 135 F.3d 960, 963 (5th Cir.

1998).

7 See id.

8 We note that the district court entered yet another judgment

in this case on April 24, 2001. This latest judgment appears to be

a final judgment. That the Appellants filed the appeal pending

before us prematurely does not foreclose th eir ability to appeal

from this most recent judgment. Moreover, with respect to this

April 24 judgment, the Appellees apparently have pending before the

district court a “Motion to Correct Final Judgment.” Such motions

ma y suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See F ED

. R.

A PP

. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (West 2001); Madison v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc.

, 114 F.3d 514, 516 (5th Cir. 1997).

4 merely a formal, ministerial entry of the January 21, 2000 orders. 6

Indeed, the summary judgment order disposed of issues not resolved

or properly addressed by the court on January 21, 2000. As the

notices of appeal were premat urely filed, our Court has no

jurisdiction. 7 We must therefore DISMISS the instant appeals. 8

DISMISSED.