1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2002

___________ Saeed Pirooz, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 9, 2007 Filed: July 2, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (MEM C) appeals from the district court’s 1 order denying its motion to vacate an arb itration award and granting Saeed Pirooz’s complaint for confirmation of the award. We affirm.
Pirooz was an employee of MEMC, a ma nufacturer of silicon wafers, from July 1990 until February 2002, when MEMC terminated his employment. During his employment, Pirooz entered into an Employm ent Agreement in whic h he agreed that,-2- for two years after his termination, he would not “engage in or contribute [his] knowledge to any work or activ ity that involves a product, pr ocess, apparatus, service or development which is then competitive with or similar to a product, process, apparatus, service or development on which [he] worked . . . while at MEMC.” Upon Pirooz’s termination, he and MEMC entered into a General Release and Waiver Agreement that reaffirmed th ese obligations. It also provided that MEMC would pay Pirooz certain severance benefits, that th ese severance benefits would be subject to forfeiture if Pirooz breached his obligations , and that any disput e between the parties with respect to Pirooz’s employment or the agreement would be resolved by arbitration.
Approximately fifteen months after hi s termination from ME MC, Pirooz began working for Soitec USA, Inc. MEMC subs equently brought an arbitration action against Pirooz, alleging that he had viol ated his non-compete obligations by working for Soitec within two years of his termination. MEMC sought the forfeiture of all severance payments and other benefits th at it had paid Pir ooz under the General Release and Waiver Agreement, as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The arbitrator concluded that MEMC had not shown that Pirooz breached the contract, stating that MEMC had not carried its “ burden of proving that while [Pirooz] worked for MEMC it had a product, process, apparatus, service or development ‘then competitive with or similar to a product’ soldby Soitec.” The arbitrator also awarded Pirooz attorneys’ fees. Pirooz thereafter filed a complaint seeking confirmation of the arbitration award. MEMC filed a motion to vacate the award, alleging that 1) the arbitrator exceeded the power granted to him; 2) the awar d was not mutual, final, and definite; and 3) the award failed to draw its essence from the ag reement and evidenced a manifest disregard for the law. After rejecting MEMC’s arguments, the district court denied MEMC’s motion to vacate and granted Pirooz’s request to confirm the arbitration award.-3- On appeal, MEMC raises the same argumen ts that it raised before the district court. Having reviewed the record and th e parties’ submissions, we agree with the conclusions reached by the district court a nd affirm on the basis of its thorough, wellreasoned Memorandum and Order. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________