Case Name: PACE SHIPPING SERVICES NETWORK, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. OCEAN D, M/V her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., formerly known as Haight M/V, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Ocean Pride Company Ltd., Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-11
Citations: 96 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 03-30452
Parties: PACE SHIPPING SERVICES NETWORK, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. OCEAN D, M/V her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., formerly known as Haight M/V, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Ocean Pride Company Ltd., Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 957–957

Head Matter:
PACE SHIPPING SERVICES NETWORK, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. OCEAN D, M/V her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., formerly known as Haight M/V, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Ocean Pride Company Ltd., Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
No. 03-30452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 11, 2004.
Steven E. Psarellis, Karen S. Kovach, Psarellis & Associates, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-App ellant-Cr o s s-App ellee.
Robert B. Fisher, Jr., Daniel A. Tadros, Heather M. Valliant, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, New Orleans, LA, Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After this case was set for oral argument, the parties filed a joint motion stating hat "the parties wish to waive oral argument in this matter and submit it on the briefs, exhibits, and the record herein." Upon reviewing the briefs, exhibits, and the record, we conclude that the parties have not raised any pertinent questions of law; and that the multiple factual issues disputed by the parties were decided by the district court without clear error, for the reasons assigned by the district court. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.