### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 30861

W AL TE R J EVAN S P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. BURL CAI N, W ARDEN, L OUI S I ANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTI ARY R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana
B ef ore K IN G , H IG G IN B O T H A M , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t W a l ter J. E va n s ( “E v a n s”) i s a L ou i sian a S tate Peni t ent i ar y i nm at e w ho s ee ks t o r eve r se t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof hi s habeas
c o r pus pe t i t i o n a nd reque s t s i m m e di at e r e l e as e f r o m i nc ar c e r at i o n. Fo rt he
rea son s set f

orth be l ow , w e d en y re l i ef an d aff i rm the distri ct cou rt. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS E van s w as i n di ct ed by a L ou i si an a gran d j u ry on tw o cou n t s of aggrav ated
r ape, one c ount of at t em pt ed aggr avat ed r ape, and one c ountof ar m ed r obbe r y. H e w as f

ound gui l t y o n al lc harge s. O n A ugust9, 2002, t he t r i alc our ts i gned an ex part e order granti n g E van s a n ew t ri al bu t al so or al l y den i ed h i s m ot i on f or a ne w t r i al

. The dock e tno t e s t hatt he m o t i o n was de ni e d a nd g r ant e d o n t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 30861

2 sa m e d a y w i th ou t i n d i ca ti n g w h i ch cam e f i rst. E va n s sti p u l a tes, an d the S tate do e s no tdi s put e , t hat t he o r de r w as fax e d t o t he t r i al c o ur t w hi c h s i gne d i ta nd
r e t ur ne d i t w i t h i n m i nut e s . La t e rt hatda y, a tt he s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng and ap pa rentl y u n aw are t h at t h e m ot i on ha d alr ead y been si gn ed, E van s’ s c ou n sel br o ugh tt he m o t i o n t o t he co ur t ’ s at t e nt i o n. The t r i alc o ur tde ni e d t he m o t i o n. O n A u gu st30, 200 2, at a second sentenci n g h eari n g, t h e t ri alcourtrei t erat ed i t s den i alof

t h e m ot i on f

or a new t ri al

. Th e parti es ag re e th a tt h e t ri alcourt i n ten d ed to de n y E va n s ’ s m o tio n f or a n ew tri a lbu t disag ree w i th resp ect to
w h et h er t h e t ri alcourt w as m erel y rem edy i n g a cl eri calerr or i n doi n g so orreevaluati n g a pri or det erm i n ati on . E van s w as sen t en ced t o l i f e i m pri sonm en tf

or t h e a gg r av at e d r ap e c o unt s , s i xt y- f i ve y e ar s a tha r d l ab o rf o rt he a t t em pted agg ravated rape cou n t , an d si xty years at hard l abor f or t h e agg ravated robbery
c ount , al lt o b e s er ved c onc urr ent l y. A se r i e s o f

s t at e c o ur tpo s t c o nvi c t i o n a n dha be as c o r pus pe t i t i o ns f o l l o w e d. A l l w ere d en i ed

. E va n s th en fi l ed a p eti ti on for h a b ea s reli ef i n fe d e r a l co u rt,
r ai s i ng f

o urg r ou n ds o f

e r r o r . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d t he pe t i t i o n. Eva ns soug h ta cer t i f

i cat e of app eal abil i t y ( “ C O A ” ) f rom t h i s c ou rtw h i ch w as gran t ed
on t he so l e i ss ue of w het her t he Loui si ana t r i al c our t l ac ked j uri sdi c t i on to sentence him af

t er i th ad g ran t ed h i s m ot i on f or a new t ri al

. Sh ort l y t h ereaf t er, E va n s f i l ed a “M oti on F or O rd er S tay i n g P en d i n g A p p ea l

. ”

S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ In a h abea s corpus ap pea l , w e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n gs of

fact f o rc l e a re r r o ra n d r e v i e w i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w d e n o v o , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me stan d a rd of rev i ew to th e sta te cou rt’ s d ecisi on as th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” Mart i n ez v. Joh n son , 255 F. 3d 229, 237 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( q u oti n g T h o mp so n v. Ca in , 161 F
. 3 d 80 2 , 8 0 5 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 8 ))

. U n d er th e A n ti terror i sm an d E ff ective D ea th P en a l ty A ct of

19 9 6 ( “A E D P A ”) , h a b ea s reli ef ch a l l en gin g a ju d gm en t of a state
c our tm ay o nl y be gr ant ed i f “ t he adj udi c at i on . . . ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hatN o. 07- 30861

3 w as contr ary t o, or i n vol ved an u n reasona bl e ap pl i cat i on of, cl earl y est abli shed Fed e r all aw, a s de t erm i n ed by t he Supr e m e Cour t
. . . ; o r( 2) r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i o n t hatw as bas e d on an unr e as o nab l e det e r m i nat i o n of t he fac t s i n l i ght
o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). DI S CU S S I ON I . M ot i on t o St ay In h is M o tio n to S ta y , E v a n s u r g e s th a t w e s ta yth e d e te r m in a tio n o f h is
r e m ai ni ng c l ai m w hi l e he s e e ks r e - r e vi e w o f hi s o r i gi nal c l ai m s i n t he Lo ui s i ana F if t h C ir c u it C o u r to f A p p e a l a c c o r d in gto th e L o u is ia n a S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s
o pi ni o n i n S t atev. Cordero , 9 93 So

. 2 d 2 03 ( La. 2 00 8)

. W e de ny hi s m o t i o n. I n Cordero , t he Lo ui s i ana Supr e m e Cour tr e m e di e d a de f i c i e nc y i n t he Loui s i ana Fi f

t h Ci r c ui t ’ s pr o c e s s o f r e vi e w i ng pr o s e , po s t c o nvi c t i o n a ppl i c at i o ns fo r s u p e r v is o r yw r it s , a p r o c e s s th a tfe lls h o r to f t h e s t a t e c o n s t it u t io n ’s
r equi r em ent s. 993 So. 2d at204–05
. Speci f i c al l y, f r om Februar y 8, 1994, t o M ay 21, 200 7, t h e L ou i si an a F i f t h C i rcui tassi gn ed a si n gl e j u dg e t o revi ew al lpro se w r i tappl i c at i ons w hi l e t he st at e’ s c ons t i t ut i on req ui r ed t hatt he c our tof appeal “si t i n pa n els of

at l ea st t h ree j u d ge s. ” L A
. C ONST
. a r t. V , § 8 (A ); seealso Joh n son v. Jef

f ers on , N o. 09- 2516, 2009 W L 1808718, at*1 ( E
. D
. La. June 19, 2 0 0 9 ) ( d e t a i l i n g h o w t h i s r e v e l a t i o n c a me t o l i g h t )

. T h e L o u i s i a n a S u p r e me C ou rtr e sol ved t o rem an d allsuccess i ve w ri tapp l i cat i on s al l egi n g t h i s def i ci en cy d u r in gth e re le v a n t p e r i o d to th e L o u is ia n a F ifth C ir c u it fo ra p r o p e r ly
c o n d u c te d re -r e v ie w . S ee Cordero , 9 9 3 S o . 2 d a t 2 0 4

– 0 5 ; se e a lso S ta te exre l. C u sh in ello v. S ta te , 7 S o . 3 d 1 1 7 6 ( L a . 2 0 0 9 ) (r e ma n d i n gf o rr e - r e v i e w a successive w ri tapp l i cat i on f i l ed aft er Cordero b u t m a k in gth e sa m e a rg u m e n ts). Abrief glan ce a t ou r d ock et rev ea l s m a n y p eti ti on er s w h ose su cces sive sta te
w r i t s w e r e r e m and e d f o rr e - r e vi e w b y t he Lo ui s i ana Supr e m e Cour ti n Cordero

. E vans i nt ends t o s ee k t hi s r e- r evi ew and urg es t hatw e s t ay hi s fede r alhabeas p r o c e e d in g s p e n d in gits o u tc o m e .N o. 07- 30861

E vans’s cas e is unlike th at in Gomez v. Dretke , wher e this court granted a stay to 1 allow T ex as state c ourt s to addre ss w heth er a prisoner who w as a Mexican citiz en was entitle d to h abe as relief ba sed ona Pre sidentialmemorandu ma d d r es sing th e treaty -basedri ght to a ssi st ancef

rom th e Me xic a nc on sulate
. See42 2 F .3d 2 65, 265–67(5th Cir. 2 005). There , Texas courts had not yet rule d on the i mplication s of the Pre sidentialmemorandu m, an d th e is s uer eq uir ed difficult co nstitution al determination s, whichwoul d beren dered null if th e st atec ourtgrante d reli ef

. Seei d

. at 267–68
. Further, in order for the state court to review the petitioner’s state successive writ , our grantin g a staywas n ecessary due to T ex as’s “du al fo ru m”rule

. See id. at26 5–6 6 &n .4. 4 O u r d en i a lo f E va n s’ s req u est i s gu i d ed by S u p rem e C ou rt pre ced en t. In R h i n es v. W

eber , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t fe d e r a l d is tr ic t co u r ts r e ta in th e ir d is c r e tio n to s ta yfe d e r a l h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s b u t w a r n e d th a t t o o fr e q u e n tly st aying federalha beas proceedi n gs “ha s the potenti alto u n derm i n e [A E D P A ’ s] t w i n pu r po s e s ” o f

c o m i t y an d f

i nal i t y. 5 44 U
. S. 2 69 , 2 77 ( 20 05 )

. The r e , t he C ou rti n di cat ed that a st ay is not j u st i f i ed w h ere i tw i l lonl y resul ti n f u rt h er d e la y . Se e i d. at 277–78 ( st at i ng t hat “ pet i t i oner s c oul d f r ust r at e AE D PA ’ s goal of f i nal i t y by dra ggi ng outi ndef i ni t el y t hei rfede r alhabeas r evi ew ” )

. A st ay m ay be j u st i f

i ed, how ever, w h en a peti t i on er “ru n [s] the ri sk of f orever l osi n g [ h i s] op p ortu n i ty for an y fed era lrev i ew of [his] u n ex h a u sted cl a i m s. ” I d. a t275. T h u s , th e E ig h th C ir c u it e r r e d in h o ld in g t h a t g r a n tin ga m o tio n to s ta yis al w ays i m perm iss ib le, an d th e C o u rt r e m a n d e d for th e d e te rm in a tion of w h et h er th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in s ta y in gth e p r o c e e d in g s . I d. a t 2 7 9
. H e r e , t he c i r c um s t anc e s o f Evan s ’ s c as e do no tj us t i f y a s t ay . Fi r s t , Evan s

1 does n otargu e t h at he w i l lbe b arred f rom obtai n i n g re- revi ew i n t h e st ate c ou rt by o ur c ont i nued re vi ew and di spo si t i on o f hi s habeas c as e. Sec ond, no par ty he r e a r gue s t hatEvan s ’ s r e m ai ni ng c l ai m i s une xha us t e d. I n fac t , t he Lo ui s i ana S u p re m e C ou rtha s r evi ew ed that c l ai m an d d en i ed h i s app l i cat i on f or a s u p e r v is o r yw r it. S ee S ta te ex re l. E v a n s v. S ta te , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 6 8 4 (L a . 2 0 0 5 ); cf. Cordero , 993 So. 2 d at 21 4 ( K i m ball , J. , concurri n g) ( “ M an y of t h ese c ases hav e, i n fact , . . . been revi ew ed on postconvi ct i on by the seven ju sti ces of t h i s c ou rt i n earl i er p roceedi n gs. ” )

. T h i rd, itis a pp aren tt h at al lE van s s t an ds t o gai n f romN o. 07- 30861

Our situation is unlike that of a district court facin g a Cordero -basedmotion to stay 2 file d at th e veryouts etof afed er al h ab ea s proc ee din g . A dis trict co urtmu stc arefullya sse ss wh eth erth e circu mst a nce s of eachc a sej u stif yast ay , see, e .g., Rhines , 544 U. S. at 277 (“[A] district co urt would abu se its discr etio n if it wereto grant [a petitioner] astaywhenhis unexh auste d cl aims are plainlymeritless.”), and we do not a d dress th e b oun dari es of the district co urt’s discretion to grant a stay oth er thanto point out th at such discretion is limited b yth e purp os esof A E DPA , see id

. at 276
. Under the Louisiana Co de of Crimin al Procedure, “[w]he n a defendant obtains a n ew 3 tri al

. . . , th e s t at e m u s t c o m m e nc e th e s e c o n d tri al within o n e ye ar f ro m th e date the new trial i s granted, .

. . or withinthe period estab lish ed by Articl e 578, which ever i s lo nger.” LA . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . art. 5 82. Articl e 5 78 provides that “no trialshall bec om m en c ednor any bail obli gationbeenforceable

. . . incapitalca ses after three years from the date of institution of th e prosecution .” LA . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . art. 5 78. E vans was indicted in 2001 and the pe riodof re -tri al wo uldh ave el aps edthre e yearsl ater, in2 0 0 4
. 5 a st ay i s f

u rt h er del ay of h i s al ready t h ree- year- l on g federalha beas proceedi n gs. W e a r e a tt he f

i nals t age of

t hos e procee d i ngs, and t he i ss ues f orr evi ew have bee n pare d dow n t o t he si ngl e, u nco m pl i c at ed quest i on of w het hert he s t at e t r i al court h ad j u ri sdi ct i on t o senten ce E v a n s. I n l i gh tof t h e ci rcum st an ces of 2 E vans’ s c as e a nd i n co nsi der at i on of A E D PA ’ s purpo se s, E vans’ s m ot i on t o s t ay i s de ni e d. I I . Juri s di ct i onal C hal l enge Evans a r gue s t hatt he t r i alc o ur t e xc e e de d i t s j ur i s di c t i o n bys e nt e nc i ng h im b e c a u s e , fro m th e tim e th e co u r t s ig n e d th e o r d e rg r a n tin ga n e w t r ia l, it
w a s d i ve sted o f au th ority u n d er th e L ou i sian a C od e of C ri m i n a lP roce d u re. In
o t he rw o r ds , Evan s a sser t s t hatt he s i gne d o r de rs ho ul d p r e va i lo ve rt he sub sequ en tverbalord er d en yi n g h i m a n ew tri al

. E van s m ai n t ai n s t h at because h is F ifth , T h ir te e n th , a n d F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t r i g h ts w e r e co n s e q u e n tly vi ol ated, he i s enti t l ed to a w ri tof ha beas corpu s and i m m edi ate r el ease. 3 Th e di st r i c tc our tdet er m i ned t hatE vans’ s j uri sdi c t i onalcom p l a i nt w as o n e of st a te p ro ce d u re a n d d id n o t en title h im to fe d e r a l h a b e a s r e li e f. A c c or di ngl y, i tdefer r ed t o t he st at e co urt s’h andl i ng of the m at t er— w hi c h had p rev i ou sly de n i ed E va n s’ s req u est for rel i ef. F i n d i n g n o u n rea so n a b leN o. 07- 30861

6 de t e r m i nat i o n of

t he fac t s i n l i ghtof

t he ev i de nc e pr e s e nt e d att r i aland no t hi ng contrary t o or i n vol vi n g an un reasona bl e app l i cat i on of federall aw , t h e di st ri ct court f u rt h er n ot ed t h at the t ri alcou rt ’ s error w as p u rel y m i n i st eri alan d d i d n ot
a ffe c t t h e fu n d a m e n ta l fa ir n e s s o f E v a n s ’ s tr ia l. T h i s c ou rtha s c on sist en t l y dem on st rat ed d eference t o st ate c ou rt determ i n ati on s of

st ate l aw , i n cl u di n g j u ri sdi ct i on aldeter m in a t i on s based on state law

. T h i s d eferen ce is i l l u strate d i n ou r d ecisi on s i n vo l vin g ch a l l en ge s to th e suffi ci en cy of a state i n d i ctm en t. T h ere , w e ha ve em p h a sized th a t “[i]t is set t l ed i n t h i s C i rcui ttha tthe suff i ci en cy of a st ate i n di ct m en tis not a m att er for fed e ra l h a b e a s co rp u s r e li e f u n l ess i tcan be sh ow n t h at t h e i n di ct m en ti s s o d efecti ve tha t t h e con v icti n g co u rt ha d n o j u ri sd i cti on . ” B ra n ch v. Este lle , 631 F
. 2 d 12 2 9 , 12 3 3 ( 5 th C i r. U n i t A19 8 0 ) (em p h a sis a d d ed ); seeals o McK ay v . Col l i ns , 1 2 F
. 3d 66, 68 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) ( sam e)

. I n t h i s r egard , “ [ a] n absen ce of j u ri sdi ct i on i n t h e convi ct i n g court i s . . . a basi s f or f ederalha beas corpu s r el i ef cog n i za b l e u n d er th e d u e p roce ss clau se.” L o w er y v. Este lle , 696 F. 2d 333, 337 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). B u t “ [w ]h e r e th e s ta te co u r ts h a v e h e l d t h a t a n in d ic tm e n t is
su ff i ci en t un d er state l a w , a fed era lco u rt n ee d n ot a d d ress tha t i ssu e.” McK ay , 12 F. 3da t6 8. I n ot he rw o r ds , “ ‘ [ w ] he n i tappe ar s . . . t hatt he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he in d ic tm e n t w a s s q u a r e lyp r e s e n te d to th e h ig h e s t c o u r t o f th e s ta te o n a p p e a l,
a n d th a tc o u r th e ld th a tth e tr ia l c o u r th a d ju r is d ic t i o n o v e rth e c a s e ,’” A l exan d er v. McCot t er , 7 7 5 F .2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (a lte r a tio n s in o r ig in a l) ( quot i ng Li ne rv . Phe l ps , 731 F
. 2d 120 1, 120 3 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) ) , t h en t h e qu est i on

“ as t o w h et h er a s t ate t ri alcourt w a s d e p ri ved of j u ri sdi ct i on . . . i s a questi on foreclosed to a fed era lh a b ea s cou rt, ” L i n er , 731 F. 2d at1203. An i ss ue m ay be
s qua r e l y pr e s e nt e d to an d dec i de d b y t he s t at e ’ s hi ghe s tc o ur tw he n t he pe t i t i o ne rpr e s e nt s t he a r gum e nti n hi s a ppl i c at i o n f o r po s t c o nvi c t i o n r e l i e f a nd th e s ta te ’ s h ig h e s t c o u r t d e n ie s th a t a p p lic a tio n w ith o u t w r i t t e n o r d e r . S ee Al e x and er , 7 75 F
. 2da t5 99 ( “ By r e f us i ng t o g r antt he a ppe l l antr e l i e f

. . . t heN o. 07- 30861

7 Texas C our tof

C r i m i nalA ppeal s has ne c es sa r i l y , t ho ugh no te x p r e s s l y, hel d t hat th e T e x a s c o u r ts h a v e ju r is d ic tio n . . . .”); s e e , e . g. , McK ay , 12 F. 3d at68 (ho l di ng t hata n i s s u e w as s qua r e l y pr e s e nt e d t o t he s t at e ’ s hi ghe s tc o ur tw he n t he peti t i on er presented t h e argu m en ti n a stat e a pp l i cat i on f or post convic t i on rel i ef
an d the T exas C ou rtof C ri m i n alA pp eal s den i ed the ap pl i cat i on w i t h ou tw ri t t en o r d e r ); see als o G arret t v. McC ot t er , 807 F. 2d 482, 484 ( 5t h C i r . 1987) (d e t e r m in in gth a ta n is s u e h a s n o t b e e n s u ff ic ie n t ly p r e s e n t e d to th e s t a t e ’s h i gh estcourtw h en t h at court di sm i ssed t h e ap pl i cat i on f or post convic t i on rel i ef
a s im p ro v id e n tlyse t). H ere , the qu estion of w h eth er th e st a te t ri a lcou rt l a ck ed j u ri sd i cti on to
s e n te n ce E va n s w a s sq u a rely p rese n ted to th e L ou i sian a S u p rem e C ou rt in E v a n s ’ s a p p l i c a tio n fo ra s u p e r v is o r yw r it. A n d , u n lik e th e a p p lic a tio n in G a rr ett , t he Loui si ana Sup r em e Courtdi d notdeny t he appl i c at i on as i m provi den t l y set ; i n st e a d , t h e st ate’ s hi gh estcourt“ n ecess ari l y, t h ou gh not exp ress l y” h el d that t h e st ate t ri alcourtha d j u ri sdi ct i on to se n te n ce E van s. B ecau se t h i s i ssue w as presented t o an d den i ed by the L ou i si an a S u prem e C ou rt andb e c aus e Evan s ’ s c ur r e ntar gum e ntre l i e s so l e l y o n t he co nt e nt i o n t hatt he sta te c ou rt s m i sapp l i ed that st ate l aw , our revi ew of t h i s c l ai m i s t h eref ore pr e c l ude d. E ven w ere our revi ew n ot precl u ded , w e w ou l d s t i l l be requ i red “ t o accor d d u e d eferen ce to th e state cou rts’in terp reta ti on s of i ts ow n l a w . ” Se e McK ay , 12 F .3 d a t 6 9
. T h e fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r r i n t h i s r e g a r d

. It e x p r e s s ly def er r ed t o t he st at e co urt ’ s pos t c onvi c t i on deci si on thatthe st at e t r i alc our thad de ni e d E van s’ s m o t i o n a nd t he r e f o r e ha d j ur i s di c t i o n t o s e nt e nc e Evan s . The
reco rd sh ow s th a t t h e sta te tri a lcou rt ad a m a n tl y d en i ed E va n s’ s m oti on i n bo th
an Augus t 9 , 2 002 s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng anda n Augus t3 0, 2 00 2 s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng. Fur t he r , Evan s i ni t i al l y be l i e ve d t h e m ot i o n t o b e de ni e d b e c aus e he
c h a lle n g e d th a t d e n ia l o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. S e e S t a t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 817 So. 2d 40, 47N o. 07- 30861

8 ( L a. 200 2) ( “ E ven t h e defen da n tkn ew t h e t ri alcourtintended to d en y t h e m ot i on f o rnew t r i alas i s ev i de ntf r o m t he de fe nda nt ’ s a ppe alo f hi s c o nvi c t i o n a f

t e rt he
n e w tr ia l m oti on w a s i n a d v e r te n tly s ig n e d .”). E v a n s a tt e m p ts to d is tin g u is h th is
c a s e f r o m Wi l l i a ms by pointi n g to im m ater i alfact u aldi f ferences, bu tt h ese d if fe r e n c e s a r e in s u ff

ic ie n tto o v e r c o m e th e d e fe r e n c e w e p a yto th e s t a t e c o u r t ’s
c onc l usi on. Th u s, w e c annots ay t hatt he s t at e po st c onvi c t i on c our tm ade a n unr e as o n able de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he e nt i r e r e c o r d, l e ta l o ne t h at i tun reasona bl y ap pl i ed cl earl y est abli shed federall aw ( gi ven t h at al lof E van s’ s argum en t s are ba sed on stat e law )

. A ccor di n gl y, E van s i s not en t i t l ed to fed e ra l h a b e a s r e li e f. CO NC L US I ON T h e M o tio n to S ta yis D E N IE D
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is AF F I RMED.