Case Name: BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMERCIAL METALS CO., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-23
Citations: 383 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 09-20611
Parties: BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMERCIAL METALS CO., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMERCIAL METALS CO., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-20611.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 23, 2010.
Frederick William Mahley, Strasburger & Price, Houston, TX, David N. Ventker, Daniel R. Warman, Ventker & Warman, P.L.L.C., Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
George H. Bowles, Williams Mullen, Virginia Beach, VA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After studying the briefs, hearing argument, and reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Specifically, the appellant's complaint fails to allege, first, any facts sufficient to show abandonment, see Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 220 F.3d 659, 671 (5th Cir.2000); second, it has failed to establish that it is a party to or third-party beneficiary of any maritime contract that would give it a maritime lien, see Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 31-32, 125 S.Ct. 385, 160 L.Ed.2d 283 (2004). The judgment of the district court is therefore
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.