Court Opinion

ID: 8990669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-27 12:09:53.233228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:54.268876
License: Public Domain

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.
The United States appeals the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”), Appeal of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., ASBCA No. 36751, 1990 WL 57424 (Apr. 26, 1990), granting summary judgment to appellee, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (“Newport News”), and holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Newport News’ contract claim. As to jurisdiction, the Board based its decision on the ground that the government failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment on the merits, because it did not offer any evidence that Newport News’ Executive Vice President did not have overall responsibility for the company’s affairs and thus was not qualified under the applicable regulation to certify its claim. Because the Board correctly decided that no genuine issue of fact existed concerning jurisdiction — the only issue on appeal — we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 29, 1986, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) suspended payments under 33 contracts with Newport News “because the contractor denied [it] access to tax return information and financial statement data.” Newport News, slip op. at 2. The amount withheld totalled $1,162,125. Id. On February 6, 1987, Newport News filed a claim for the entire amount withheld plus interest. The claim was certified by J.E. Turner, Jr., as Executive Vice President of Newport News, and received by the Navy contracting officer on February 9, 1987. Id.
While the contracting officer’s decision was pending, DCAA issued a subpoena duces tecum demanding production of additional financial documents from Newport News. Although it produced some of the requested documents, Newport News also filed suit in federal district court, attempt*997ing to invalidate the subpoena. The government moved for enforcement, but its motion was denied. United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 655 F.Supp. 1408 (E.D.Va.1987). The government appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s order. United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 837 F.2d 162 (4th Cir.1988).
While a second appeal to the Fourth Circuit concerning the DCAA’s subpoena power was pending, United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 862 F.2d 464 (4th Cir.1988), DCAA released the amounts withheld from Newport News. In a final decision dated February 8, 1988, the contracting officer denied Newport News’ claim for interest “because the costs were properly suspended when they were considered not to constitute allowable cost reimbursable at the time.” Letter from C.G. Griffith, Contracting Officer, to Newport News (Feb. 8, 1988). Newport News appealed the decision to the Board on the issue of the entitlement to interest. The government opposed Newport News’ summary judgment motion by challenging, inter alia, “jurisdiction on the basis of claim certification by an improper person.” Govt. Br. at 4.
In its decision granting summary judgment, the Board held that the claim was properly certified, and thus, it had jurisdiction to hear Newport News’ appeal. Newport News, slip op. at 4. As to the merits, the Board concluded that Newport News was entitled to interest on the amounts withheld because “[o]nce the monies were paid by the contracting officer, both the underlying basis for their retention and the reason for their payment became irrelevant.” Id. at 5.
On appeal to this court, the government challenges only the Board’s threshold rulings that certification was proper and therefore it had jurisdiction to decide the claim.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

Our jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of boards of contract appeals arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10) (1988) (exclusive jurisdiction from a final decision of an agency board of contract appeals under the Contract Disputes Act), and our review is limited by the Contract Disputes Act. A Board decision on an issue of fact will not be sét aside unless it “is fraudulent, or arbitrary, or capricious, or so grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith, or if such decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” 41 U.S.C. § 609(b) (1988). On questions of law, however, Board decisions are neither final nor conclusive, but are “freely reviewable.” American Elec. Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 774 F.2d 1110, 1112 (Fed. Cir.1985).
DISCUSSION
The Contract Disputes Act requires that for a claim against the government total-ling more than $50,000:
the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable.
41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(1) (1988). Clearly, for a claim like this one where the contractor sought over $1.1 million before the Board, proper certification was required. United States v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 927 F.2d 575, 578 (Fed.Cir.1991); W.M. Schlosser Co. v. United States, 705 F.2d 1336, 1338 (Fed.Cir.1983).
The Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), which implement the Act, limit the corporate officials who may certify a claim to:
(i) A senior company official in charge at the contractor’s plant or location involved; or
(ii) An officer or general partner of the contractor having overall responsibility for the conduct of the contractor’s affairs.
*998FAR 33.207(c)(2), 48 C.F.R. § 33.207(c)(2) (1990). Failure to comply with section 605(c)(1) of the Act and its implementing regulations deprives the Board of jurisdiction to hear the claim. Grumman Aerospace, 927 F.2d at 579; see Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. v. United States, 878 F.2d 1426, 1428 (Fed.Cir.1989) (certification requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite); W.M. Schlosser Co., 705 F.2d at 1338 (“Unless the claim was certified when it was submitted to the contracting officer, the Board should have neither heard nor ruled on the appeal.”).
The government argues that the Board should not have granted summary judgment because a genuine dispute of material fact had been shown regarding whether Mr. Turner was a proper individual to certify the claim. In its Opposition to Newport News’ Motion for Summary Judgment before the Board, the government set out its challenge to Newport News’ certification:
There also appears [sic] to be certain underlying assumptions of fact on Newport News’ part as to the propriety of the certification of its claim on February 6, 1987. The propriety of its certification is disputed. The record, as it now stands, contains no information that the certifying official is the proper person to certify and by title, he appears not to be the proper official namely the one in charge at the plant or location in question.
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Respondent’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 5-6. On review of the record, we have not located any additional contentions or evidence by the government disputing the propriety of the certification.1
As Newport News points out, below the government only contended that Mr. Turner does not satisfy the regulation’s first subparagraph: that certification may be performed by a senior official in charge at the plant or location involved. While the government correctly asserted that the record could not support such a finding, Newport News argues that analysis under subparagraph (i) is not relevant since Mr. Turner’s certification was intended to oper^ ate under the alternative provision, subsection (ii); that is, he is a corporate officer with overall responsibility for the conduct of the contractor’s affairs. For that proposition, Newport News argues, the record is not, as the government alleges, without “information.” On the contrary, Newport News contends that the Board had sufficient information on which to base its decision. It is uncontested that Mr. Turner is Newport News’ Executive Vice President and that his certification so identifies him. In addition, in its reply brief to the government’s Opposition, Newport News specifically asserted that Mr. Turner had “unlimited authority to bind the Company and has overall responsibility for the conduct of its affairs.”2 Appellant’s Reply to Respondent's Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 6.
Newport News asserts that this information, taken together, is legally sufficient to support the Board’s determination. The government, on the contrary, contends on the basis of its conclusory statements *999presented in its Opposition that we are obligated to remand this case so that discovery can take place, and the Board can “sift and weigh the relevant evidence.” Govt. Br. at 15. Instead, the government argues, “the [BJoard relied upon the bald assertion by [Newport News] that the [EJxecutive [V]ice [President, apparently based solely upon his title, had overall responsibility for the conduct of its affairs.” Id. However, as discussed above, this is not a case where the information supporting the Board’s jurisdiction is facially insufficient.
Indeed, in light of the relevant case law, it is clear that Newport News’ allegations are not, as the government characterizes them, “bald assertion^],” but form a substantial basis for the Board’s decision that under subparagraph (ii) Mr. Turner properly certified the claim. The government cites a litany of cases in which this and other courts have dismissed actions premised on claims certified by an unqualified corporate employee. However, in each of those cases, the certifier, simply by title and/or by the contractor’s own description of the official’s duties, was plainly not qualified under either provision of the regulation to certify claims.3 E.g., Grumman Aerospace, 927 F.2d at 580 (contractor alleged that certifier, a senior vice president and treasurer, had only “overall responsibility for the [contractor’s] financial affairs”) (emphasis added); Ball, Ball, & Brosamer, 878 F.2d at 1426 (chief cost engineer); W.H. Moseley Co. v. United States, 677 F.2d 850, 230 Ct.Cl. 405 (economist), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 836, 103 S.Ct. 81, 74 L.Ed.2d 77 (1982); National Sur. Corp. v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 407 (1990) (senior surety claims specialist); Donald M. Drake Co. v. United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 518 (1987) (a project manager with limited managerial responsibility); Al Johnson Const. Co. v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 732 (1990) (project manager without authorization to certify); Romala Corp. v. United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 411 (1987) (contractor’s attorney).
By upholding the Board’s decision, the government contends that we will “shift the burden of establishing jurisdiction” to the defendant. On the contrary, the Board, after weighing the relevant information, determined that “[s]inee the Government has offered no evidence or proffer that [Mr. Turner] lacked the required responsibility at the time he executed the certification, we find no basis for concluding that the certification was not valid.” Newport News, slip op. at 4. The “burden” being imposed by the Board is not “demonstrating jurisdiction,” as the government alleges, but that of creating a genuine issue of material fact so as to preclude summary judgment.4 Here, Newport News’ uncontested allegation that the *1000claim was certified by its Executive Vice President who, by analogy to the Chief Executive Officer, apparently possessed overall responsibility for the affairs of the company, shifted merely the burden of creating a genuine issue to the government. The party opposing summary judgment must do more than show that “some metaphysical doubt” exists as to the material facts to create a triable issue. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (“the nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Citations omitted.)).
Before the Board, the government offered nothing more in response to Newport News’ submission that its claim was certified by the Executive Vice President, than a short conclusory statement that “he appears not to be the proper official ... in charge at the plant or location in question” under subparagraph (i) and no specific contentions that he was not a proper certifier under subparagraph (ii). Newport News does not contest that Mr. Turner could not certify the claim under subparagraph (i): He is not a plant manager or a senior company official in charge at the plant or location where the contract was being performed.
As the Board correctly reasoned, particularly in light of the information presented by Newport News, the government was required to submit some sort of evidence or specific, substantiated allegation that this corporation’s Executive Vice President “lacked the required responsibility at the time he executed the certification.” Newport News, slip op. at 4. Only by making such a presentation to the Board could the government arguably have created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. However, the government clearly did not do so. Aside from its assertions under subparagraph (i), it merely said the propriety of the certification was “disputed.” To hold, as the government requests, that such non-specific, and indeed, at least in respect to the regulation’s second test, irrelevant, assertions can create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a corporation’s executive vice president may certify a claim could needlessly require boards of contract appeals to hold mini-trials on jurisdiction, thereby precluding proper resort to summary judgment and wasting scarce Board resources. This we decline to do. Indeed, to hold otherwise in a case where, as here, a claim is certified by the executive vice president, and remand for discovery and a possible trial as to his authority in the absence of any evidence that he lacked overall responsibility, would be absurd.
CONCLUSION
The Board correctly concluded that no genuine issue existed concerning whether Mr. Turner, Newport News’ Executive Vice President, was qualified to certify its claim. Therefore, the decision of the Board holding that it had jurisdiction over this case was correct and its otherwise undisputed grant of summary judgment is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
*1001UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fourth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Title Alexander v. United Parcel Service. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Hozik. Barnes v. Price. Burdette v. Mees . Childers v. North Carolina Dept, of Corrections. Commedo v. Jones. Davis v. Central Classification and Records Unit. Davis v. Higgins. Donovant v. Overton. Faulk v. Dixon. Ferguson v. Taylor. Gussin v. Shockey. Docket Number 89-1584 90-2344 91-7513, 91-7520 90-3108, 90-3118 90-6441 91-6777 91-7047 91-7519 91-6537 90-6683 90-1410 90-1402 Halsey v. Sams . 91-7541 Hamilton, In re. 91-8018 Holsey v. Schaefer. 91-6768 Holsey v. Schaefer. 91-6778 Jean v. Rice. 90-6621 Kuzmanich v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept, of Labor . 90-3095 Lee v. Murray. 90-6893 Lloyd, In re. 91-8023 N.L.R.B. v. CMCI. 90-3037 Orgain v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland. 91-1026 Perdue v. Bell. 89-6661 Sassower, In re. 91-8107 Simmons v. State of Md. 91-7050 Simmons v. State of Md. 91-7051 Smith v. Winters. 91-6031 Speller v. Muncy. 91-6292 Date 5/22/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 Disposition AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED 5/23/91 AFFIRMED 5/22/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/22/91 5/21/91 5/21/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/20/91 5/20/91 5/22/91 5/22/91 5/22/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/21/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 5/23/91 DISMISSED AFFIRMED DISMISSED AFFIRMED REVERSED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED MANDAMUS DENIED DISMISSED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED DISMISSED MANDAMUS DENIED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED MANDAMUS DENIED AFFIRMED DISMISSED REVERSED REVERSED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) W.D.N.C. D.Md. D.Md. S.D.W.Va. E.D.N.C. E.D.N.C. E.D.Va. E.D.Va. E.D.Va. E.D.N.C. D.S.C. D.Md., 725 F.Supp. 271 E.D.Va. D.Md. D.Md. E.D.N.C. Ben.Rev.Bd. W.D.Va. N.L.R.B. E.D.Va. S.D.W.Va. D.Md. D.Md. E.D.Va. E.D.Va.
*1002DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Date Disposition Appeal from and Citation (if reported) Docket Title Number Spradlin v. Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center. 91-6252 Stephens v. Blankenship. 91-6547 Tate v. Jackson. 91-7029 U.S. v. Atkins. 90-6933 U.S. v. Byers. 89-5602 U.S. v. Cowden . 91-6776 U.S. v. Darnell. 90-5788 U.S. v. Davis. 90-5359 U.S. v. Dean. 90-6916 U.S. v. Fleming. 90-5365 U.S. v. Gartrell. 90-5162 U.S. v. Hodge. 90-5161 U.S. v. Silvers. 90-6408 U.S. v. Sweeney. 90-5358 U.S. v. Vernon. 91-6545 U.S. v. Wiggins . 90-5209 U.S. v. Wright . 90-5349 U.S. v. Zapata. 90-5228 Voelker v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. 90-2344 Warden, In re . 91-8009 Wilcox, In re . 91-8019 Zuckerman v. Hadden. 90-7137 5/23/91 DISMISSED W.D.Va. 5/23/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Va. 5/23/91 DISMISSED W.D.Va. 5/23/91 AFFIRMED M.D.N.C. 5/22/91 AFFIRMED D.Md. 5/23/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Va. 5/22/91 AFFIRMED S.D.W.Va. 5/22/91 AFFIRMED D.S.C. 5/22/91 VACATED W.D.N.C. 5/22/91 AFFIRMED D.S.C. 5/21/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Va. 5/21/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Va. 5/23/91 . AFFIRMED D.Md. 5/22/91 AFFIRMED D.S.C. 5/20/91 AFFIRMED D.Md. 5/21/91 AFFIRMED M.D.N.C. 5/21/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Va. 5/22/91 AFFIRMED M.D.N.C. 5/23/91 REVERSED D.Md. 5/23/91 MANDAMUS DENIED 5/23/91 MANDAMUS DENIED 5/23/91 AFFIRMED E.D.N.C.
*1003UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS The following cases have been decided without formal opinion prepared for publication in the permanent law reports: Title Docket Number Date of Decision 90-4465 5/6/91 90-4561 5/6/91 Boston v. Lafayette Co. 90-1712 5/6/91 Vella v. Flores. 90-2496 5/6/91 Louviere v. City of Sour Lake . 90-4330 5/6/91 Chemical Waste v. Liquid Solids. Louviere v. City of Sour Lake. *Morales-King v. U.S. Dept. of Justice. 90-4692 5/6/91 *Ochoa v. Lorenzo. 90-5657 5/6/91 *Mitchell v. Lumpkin. 90-7103 5/6/91 *Franco v. El Paso County 90-8530 5/6/91 *Johnson v. Gomez. 91-4152 5/6/91 * Lucas v. Lightfoot. 90-3765 5/7/91 *Gilstrap v. Several Unknown Employees. *Gilstrap v. Sev. Members of U.S. Army. 90-8216 5/7/91 *U.S. v. Camacho-Arce . 90-8599 5/7/91 *U.S. v. Guerrero. 90-1534 5/8/91 *U.S. v. Markkula. 90-2831 5/8/91 *U.S. v. Halcro. 90-4736 5/8/91 *Garbayo v. Pic "N” Save... 90-5679 5/8/91 *U.S. v. Gomez. 91-2006 5/8/91 *U.S. v. Haynie. 90-1980 5/9/91 *U.S. v. Roberts. 90-3648 5/9/91 +Burton v. City of Houston 90-2515 5/10/91 Matter of Fiero Production 90-8528 5/10/91 U.S. v. Merit. 89-1490 5/13/91 *U.S. v. Dunbar. 90-1626 5/13/91 *Morris v. Bowles. 90-1659 5/13/91 *Watson v. Collins. 91-1243 5/13/91 90-8203 5/7/91 Disposition AFFIRMED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART VACATED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) N.D.Miss., 744 F.Supp. 746 S.D.Tex. E.D.Tex. W.D.La. E.D.Tex. Dept, of Justice W.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. W.D.Tex. E.D.Tex. E.D.La. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. W.D.La. W.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. M.D.La. S.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. N.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2. † Local Rule 47.6 case.
*1004DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title *Kemp v. Brannon. *U.S. v. Novoa-Salinas. * Miles v. Hydril Co. *Morgan v. Butler. *Dufrene v. Sullivan. *U.S. v. Ward. *U.S. v. Campbell. ‘"''Robinson v. Sullivan. *U.S. v. Smith. *E-Systems v. Pogue. *La Quinta Motor Inns v. Reynolds. *U.S. v. Rivera-Trujillo. *Sharp v. Scott, Sherwood, et al. *Benavides v. Diaz. *Thomas v. Rockwell Intern. *U.S. v. Avila. *Delk v. Lynaugh. *U.S. v. Acklen. *Gilstrap v. Sec. of the Army *Kopja v. Bibb. Docket Number 90-1865 90-2153 90-2306 90-3773 90-3832 90-4764 90-5619 90-7105 90-8397 90-8457 90-8460 90-8503 90-8583 90-8659 91-1016 91-2007 91-4128 90-4557 90-8214 91-1128 "'Rosales v. Whitley. 91-3124 *Grimmett v. Lynn. 91-4206 *Skinner v. Collins. 90-2988 Authement v. Aetna Cas.... 90-3636 *U.S. v. Mulkey. 90-1265 *Prewitt v. Lipe. *Hagins v. Texas Dept, of Corrections. *U.S. v. Massey. *Beamon v. Walker. *Davis v. Lynaugh. *Plotts v. Tarrant County Sheriff’s. *U.S. v. Rodriguez-Espinoza *U.S. v. Staten. *Robbins v. Lynn. *U.S. v. Bull. *Pedraza v. Pippins. *Gros v. Ingram Barge. *Brunk v. Swinson. "'Darrett v. Hunt Oil Co. *Prows v. Kastner. *Mitchell v. State of Miss. .. *U.S. v. Sansores-Rodriguez *U.S. v. Massengale. *Smith v. Shaw. *Selby v. Barns. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2. 90-1705 90-1737 90-1935 90-1943 90-1966 90-2659 90-2661 90-3925 90-4476 90-4788 90-4923 90-4937 90-4944 90-4955 90-7067 90-8477 90-8597 91-2238 91-3207 Date of Decision 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/14/91 5/15/91 5/15/91 5/15/91 5/15/91 5/15/91 5/16/91 5/16/91 5/17/91 90-1509 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 Disposition DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED AFFIRMED IN PART AFFIRMED DISMISSED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) N.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. E.D.La. E.D.La. E.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. E.D.Tex. W.D.La. W.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. E.D.La. W.D.La. S.D.Tex. E.D.La. N.D.Tex. N.D.Miss. N.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. S.D.Miss. N.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. M.D.La. E.D.Tex. E.D.Tex. W.D.La. E.D.Tex. W.D.La. E.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. E.D.La.
*1005DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Appeal from Docket Date of and Citation Title Number Decision Disposition (if reported) *Agomo v. Garner. 91-4064 5/17/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Tex. *Henderson v. Garner. 91-8104 5/17/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Tex. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2.
*1006UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 35) Group 1 — Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. Group 2 — Denials after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Group 3 — Denials on the Court’s own motion after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Title GROUP 1 Broughton Offshore Drilling, Inc. v. South Cent. Mach., Inc. U.S. v. Defusco . Docket Number Date of Denial Citation of Panel Decision 89-4773 90-4119 5/17/91 5/14/91 W.D.La., 911 F.2d 1050 E.D.Tex., 930 F.2d 413
*1007UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Sixth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Title Abdullah v. Reynolds. Acosta v. Jabe . A’La v. Poole . Ameritas Life Ins. Corp. v. Morgan. Amison v. McMackin. Anderson v. Morris. Arco Comfort Products Corp. v. Snyder General Corp_ Azcuy v. Morris. Bank One, Columbus, N.A. v. O’Brien. Barnes v. Shelby County Correctional Center. Bennett v. Spicer. Bennett v. U.S. Dept, of Army Boland v. Chrysler Corp. Bonner v. Campbell. Bout v. Michigan Dept, of Corrections . Bowie v. Freightliner Corp. Boyd v. Furnari. Browning v. U.S. Buchanan v. Parke. Cagle v. Gilley. Christian v. Smith. Creager v. Dallman. Crockett v. Exxon Market Gas Station. Crutcher v. Com. of Ky. CSX Transp., Inc. v. May ... Darwall v. Michigan Dept, of Corrections. Docket Number 90-5893 90-2082 91-5512 Date 5/17/91 5/22/91 5/21/91 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) E.D.Tenn. E.D.Mich. W.D.Tenn. 90-6213 91-3063 91-3103 90-1982 91-3129 5/24/91 5/29/91 5/29/91 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 5/24/91 REVERSED 5/29/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Ky. N.D.Ohio N.D.Ohio, 755 F.Supp. 194 E.D.Mich. S.D.Ohio 91-3355 5/30/91 APPEAL DISMISSED S.D.Ohio 91-5468 5/21/91 90-2095 90-1881 90-1772 90-6471 5/17/91 5/22/91 5/21/91 5/20/91 APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REMANDED AFFIRMED W.D.Tenn. W.D.Mich. E.D.Mich. E.D.Mich. N.D.Tenn. 89-2358 90-1867 90-2242 90-6584 91-5310 91-5556 90-6482 91-3304 5/17/91 5/20/91 5/24/91 5/17/91 5/21/91 5/28/91 5/20/91 5/30/91 AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED DISMISSED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED E.D.Mich. E.D.Mich. E.D.Mich. W.D.Ky. E.D.Ky. E.D.Tenn. E.D.Ky. S.D.Ohio 91-5152 91-5554 91-5204 5/21/91 5/28/91 5/21/91 APPEAL DISMISSED APPEAL DISMISSED APPEAL DISMISSED M.D.Tenn. E.D.Ky. E.D.Ky. 91-1065 5/22/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Mich.
*1008DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title De-Lin Capital, Inc. v. Huma-na, Inc. Demery v. City of Youngstown . Donelow v. City of Pontiac.. Dotson v. Humphries . Drobil v. Brown. Evans v. U.S. Government... Fling v. Hollywood Travel & Tours. Flint Area Bldg. Trades Fund v. Short. Frank v. D’Ambrosi. Gallagher v. Yeagley. Golzer v. Seabold. Granger v. Prelesnik. Gross v. City of Cleveland Heights. Gross v. U.S. Helper v. International Heating and Air Conditioning Corp. Henley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Hughes v. Evitts. International Pleating and Air Conditioning Corp. v. Arco Comfort Products Corp. ... Jamison v. Ashtabula Joint Vocational School. Johnson v. Sowders. Kuna v. Bauer. Laguta v. Alexander. Linton v. United Parcel Service . Little v. Parke. Lynott v. Story. Mahammad v. Renfro. .Mattingly v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mayville v. McMackin. Mercer v. Jaffe, Snider, Raitt & Heuer. Monger v. U.S. Docket Number Date 90-5763 5/21/91 90-3481 5/17/91 90-1876 5/28/91 91-3024 5/29/91 91-1039 5/24/91 91-1099 5/22/91 90-3994 5/28/91 90-2178 5/28/91 91-3311 5/23/91 90-3798 5/17/91 90-6277 5/28/91 90-1434 5/28/91 90-3316 5/20/91 91-5191 5/28/91 90-1982 5/24/91 90-5980 5/29/91 90-6092 5/17/91 90-1982 5/24/91 91-3326, 5/23/91 91-3370 90-6443 5/28/91 90-1335, 5/29/91 90-1336 91-3145 5/29/91 90-1915 5/24/91 91-5020 5/20/91 91-5046 5/13/91 90-6302 5/21/91 90-5900 5/24/91 90-4096 5/30/91 90-1922 5/29/91 90-6355 5/28/91 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED REMANDED AFFIRMED REVERSED DISMISSED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) W.D.Ky. N.D.Ohio; Appealing after remand 818 F.2d 1257 E.D.Mich. W.D.Tenn. W.D.Mich. E.D.Mich. N.D.Ohio E.D.Mich. N.D.Ohio S.D.Ohio E.D.Ky. W.D.Mich. N.D.Ohio E.D.Ky. E.D.Mich. M.D.Tenn. E.D.Ky. E.D.Mich. N.D.Ohio E.D.Ky. W.D.Mich. S.D.Ohio E.D.Mich. W.D.Ky. E.D.Ky. E.D.Tenn. W.D.Ky. N.D.Ohio W.D.Mich., 713 F.Supp. 1019, 730 F.Supp. 74, 736 F.Supp. 764 W.D.Tenn.
*1009DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number Date N.L.R.B. v. NRC, Inc.91-5311 5/21/91 Disposition ORDER ENFORCED National Coin Laundry, Inc. v. Solon Automated Services, Inc. 90-3883 Northern Kentucky Welfare Rights Ass’n v. Wilkinson 90-6268 Palumbo v. U.S. 91-5077 Parks v. Kelly. 91-3143 Pierson v. Wilson. 91-3356 Playter v. F.A.A. 90-3420 Pollock v. Branter Ltd. Partnership . 90-6350 Pope v. City of Columbus ... 90-3991 Prince v. Martin County Coal Corp. 90-6206 Quarles v. Barr. 89-6303 Rebel Motor Freight, Inc. v. I.C.C. 89-3886 Reed v. Sowders. 90-6501 5/28/91 AFFIRMED 5/24/91 5/20/91 5/21/91 5/17/91 5/16/91 5/28/91 5/22/91 5/29/91 5/21/91 5/28/91 5/17/91 VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED Roland v. Johnson. 90-1343 5/22/91 AFFIRMED Rose v. Dole. 90-3651 5/28/91 AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) N.L.R.B. S.D.Ohio W.D.Ky. E.D.Ky. S.D.Ohio S.D.Ohio F.A.A. E.D.Tenn. S.D.Ohio E.D.Ky. E.D.Tenn. I.C.C. E.D.Ky.; Appealing after remand 904 F.2d 708 E.D.Mich.; Appealing after remand 856 F.2d 764 Dept, of Labor; Appealing after remand 800 F.2d 563 S.E.C. v. Great Lakes Equities Co. 91-1354, 91-1405, 91-1525 Shabazz v. Sowders. 91-5260 Shelley v. Texas Eastern Transmission, Inc. 89-6513 Sherman v. Chase Packaging Corp. 90-4033 Shibler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. 90-4113 Silverburg v. Evitts. 90-6294 Skelton v. U.S. 91-5531 Smith v. U.S. 91-5052 Stafford v. Hallock. 90-3932 State of Ohio v. Thrower.... 90-4020 Sutton v. U.S. 90-4024 Thompson v. Tennessee Valley Authority. 90-5887 5/28/91 APPEAL DIS- E.D.Mich. MISSED 5/21/91 APPEAL DIS- W.D.Ky. MISSED 5/24/91 VACATED W.D.Ky. 5/21/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ohio 5/29/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ohio 5/28/91 VACATED E.D.Ky. 5/21/91 APPEAL DIS- E.D.Tenn. MISSED 5/20/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Tenn. 5/17/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ohio 5/17/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ohio 5/29/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Ohio 5/21/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Ky.
*1010DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Thompson v. U.S. Small Business Admin. Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. Tura v. Sherwin-Williams Co. U.S. v. Allen. U.S. v. Butcher. U.S. v. Cadillac Sedan Deville, 1983, VIN No. 1G6AD69NOD9140371 . U.S. v. Capps . U.S. v. Capps . U.S. v. Gaston . U.S. v. Gray . U.S. v. Hammond. U.S. v. Holloway. U.S. v. Jackson. U.S. v. Lang. U.S. v. McCargo. U.S. v. Mills. U.S. v. Nevels. U.S. v. Porter. U.S. v. Schmidt. U.S. v. Smoot. U.S. v. Smykowski. U.S. v. Street. U.S. v. Szymanski. U.S. v. Tanner. U.S. v. Voltz. U.S. v. Welch. U.S. v. Whitaker. Vest v. Ohio Council 8 of American Federation of State, County & Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO. Walton v. Michigan Dept, of Corrections. White v. Leis. Williams v. Harley Hotels, Inc. Docket Number Date 90-3774 5/29/91 89-5006 5/30/91 90-3419, 5/28/91 90-3445 90-6438 5/20/91 90-1745 5/23/91 90-4054 5/30/91 91-5154, 5/21/91 91-5155 91-5156, 5/21/91 91-5157 90-6038 5/17/91 90-5968 5/24/91 90-3772 5/17/91 90-4019 5/28/91 90-1744 5/16/91 90-1736 5/17/91 89-6322 5/28/91 90-5793 5/21/91 90-6149 5/21/91 90-2019 5/21/91 91-1133 5/22/91 90-3752 5/21/91 90-2172 5/22/91 90-5538 5/21/91 91-1137 5/24/91 90-3479 5/21/91 90-3802, 5/29/91 90-3804 90-5678 5/28/91 90-3855 5/21/91 90-3792 5/16/91 91-1192 5/17/91 89-4102 5/21/91 90-5812 5/29/91 Disposition AFFIRMED ORDER ENFORCED AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED APPEAL DISMISSED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED MOTION DENIED, ORDER AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) S.D.Ohio N.L.R.B. N.D.Ohio W.D.Ky. E.D.Mich. N.D.Ohio W.D.Tenn. W.D.Tenn. E.D.Ky. E.D.Tenn. N.D.Ohio S.D.Ohio E.D.Mich. E.D.Mich. W.D.Tenn. E.D.Tenn. E.D.Tenn. E.D.Mich. W.D.Mich. S.D.Ohio; Appealing after remand 904 F.2d 365 E.D.Mich. M.D.Tenn. E.D.Mich. N.D.Ohio S.D.Ohio W.D.Tenn. S.D.Ohio N.D.Ohio W.D.Mich. S.D.Ohio E.D.Ky.
*1011DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS-Title Docket Number Williamson v. Ashland Oil, Inc. 91-5498 Will-O-Wheel Farms v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 89-1942, 89-1977, 89-1978 Wilson v. Tennessee Dept, of Corrections. 91-5246 Yascone v. Grafton Correctional Inst. 90-3945 Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. 90-6140, 90-6215 Date 5/21/91 5/30/91 Disposition APPEAL DISMISSED 5/24/91 AFFIRMED 5/21/91 APPEAL DISMISSED 5/29/91 REVERSED ORDER ENFORCED •Continued Appeal from and Citation (if reported) E.D.Ky. E.D.Mich. M.D.Tenn. N.D.Ohio N.L.R.B.
*1012UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Title Docket Number Date Disposition Bleavins v. U.S. 90-1185 5/24/91 AFFIRMED Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension v. Jansen. 89-2802 5/22/91 AFFIRMED Hampton v. Miller. 90-1498 5/20/91 AFFIRMED Johnson v. Miller. 90-3032 5/29/91 AFFIRMED Neal v. U.S. 89-1418 5/29/91 AFFIRMED Turner v. Klincar. 88-2588 5/28/91 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Schmanke. 90-1566 5/20/91 AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) C.D.I11.; Vacating on rehearing 921 F.2d 278 N.D.IIL N.D.IIL N.D.Ind. N.D.Ind. C.D.II1. N.D.Ind.
*1013UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Title Add-Ventures, Ltd. v. U.S. .. Arellano v. I.N.S. Alfonso v. The Pasha Group Allstate Ins. v. Nichols. Alten v. City of Scottsdale... Ashway v. Ferrellgas, Inc. ... Barlow v. Vick. Barnes v. Sullivan. Barsky, In re. Bloom v. Universal City Studios . Brod v. National Transp. Safety Bd. Butler v. Gaspar. Castro v. Rubin. Clarke v. Loma Linda Foods, Inc. Costantino v. U.S. Crouch v. U.S. I.N.S. Di Stephano v. District Director . Escalanti v. Lewis. First San Francisco Corp. v. Hoff Companies, Inc. Fort Vancouver Broadcasting Corp. v. Fouce Amusement Enterprises. Funderburk v. Boyd. Geiger v. Sullivan. Gell v. Summa Corp. General Signal Corp. v. Do-nallco, Inc. Government of Peru v. Wendt Docket Number Date 90-35573, 5/15/91 90-35684 90-70346 5/16/91 89-16475 5/24/91 90-15255 5/17/91 90-15163 5/13/91 90-15008 5/14/91 89-16491 5/14/91 90-15354 5/22/91 88-5965, 5/17/91 88-6076 90-55542 5/15/91 90-70142 5/14/91 90-15271 5/28/91 88-15109 5/22/91 90-55284 5/28/91 90-56093 5/13/91 90-70434 5/13/91 90-15756 5/24/91 89-16598 5/22/91 88-5995, 5/28/91 88-6181 90-35084 5/24/91 90-55406 5/15/91 90-55671 5/24/91 90-15383 5/22/91 86-6618 5/7/91 90-55521 5/15/91 Disposition REVERSED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED REVIEW DENIED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) D.Alaska B.I.A. D.Nev. D.Ariz. D.Ariz. D.Ariz. D.Nev. N.D.Cal. C.D.Cal., 85 B.R. 550 C.D.Cal., 734 F.Supp. 1553 Nat. Transp. Safety Bd. D.Ariz. D.Hawaii C.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. B.I.A. D.Hawaii D.Ariz. D.Cal. D.Or. C.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. D.Nev. C.D.Cal. C.D.Cal., 720 F.Supp. 810
*1014DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Grohse v. City and County of San Francisco. Gumm v. C.I.R. Hadley v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. Hamry v. Beers. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Hershey v. U.S. Hiersche v. U.S. Hoff Companies, Inc. v. First San Francisco Corp. Hoff Companies, Inc. v. First San Francisco Corp. Ikner v. United Airlines, Inc. Jackson v. McIntosh. Jayar Mfg. Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co., Inc. Docket Number 90-15679 90-70100 89-16364 90-35656 90-15995 89-15262 89-35416 88-4022 90-55223, 90-55599 90-55312 90-16679 88-6195 89-55667 Joshua v. Ylst. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Ashland Oil, Inc. 90-15602 Kasch v. International Light Metals Corp. Kline v. C.I.R. Knighton v. Frank. Kuebler v. City of Escondido Lehmann v. Fleet Finance, Inc. Lin v. S.E.C. Lyddon v. Geothermal Properties, Inc. Mabson v. Old Hickory Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. Madrid-Palacios v. Rison.... Mahdavi v. Director, U.S. E.P.A. Mandell v. American Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc. Manuel v. City of East Palo Alto. 90-55379, 90-55462 89-70502 90-15089 90-55708 90-15165 90-70175 90-55386, 90-55387 90-16092 90-55587 Date 5/21/91 5/29/91 5/15/91 5/13/91 5/17/91 5/16/91 5/14/91 5/28/91 5/28/91 5/14/91 5/13/91 5/29/91 5/24/91 5/23/91 5/15/91 5/21/91 5/29/91 5/21/91 5/23/91 5/20/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 5/14/91 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 90-16071 5/22/91 AFFIRMED 90-55577 5/13/91 89-15896, 5/24/91 89-15897, 89-15963 Markosyan v. Sullivan. 90-55014 5/29/91 Marten v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 90-15437 5/28/91 Morgan v. Barsky. 88-5965, 5/17/91 88-6076 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) N.D.Cal. I.R.S. N.D.Cal. D.Or. D.Ariz. N.D.Cal. D.Or. D.Or. D.Cal. E.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. U.S.T.C. N.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. D.Ariz. S.E.C. C.D.Cal. D.Ariz. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal. C.D.Cal, 85 B.R. 550
*1015DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Date Disposition Appeal from and Citation (if reported) Docket Title Number N.L.R.B. v. Bridgeway Oldsmobile, Inc. 90-70126 Noel v. C.I.R. 90-70480 Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 v. Teichert Const. Corp. 90-15461 Padgett v. Sullivan. 90-55549 Paniagua-Estrada v. U.S. I.N.S. 90-70557 Penter v. Integrated Micro Electronics. 90-56086 Perugini v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 90-16418 Pettaway v. Carroll. 89-16238 Pinkerton v. Kincheloe. 90-35584 Pinkerton v. Kincheloe. 90-35387 Prowick Investments v. Zerbi 90-55836 Ptarmigan Co., Inc. v. Department of Interior. 90-35369 Riley v. Lewis . 90-15071 Robert Childers Co. Inc. v. County of San Diego. 89-55926 Roby v. U.S. 89-55346 Rodgers v. Russell. 90-15152 Rucker v. Jones. 90-15250 Ruddy v. Baer. 89-55574 St. Amand v. Ledbetter. 89-16481 Salman v. Adams. 90-15614 Samil Trading Co., Inc. v. Gus-tafson. 89-55613 Seagrave v. County of San Francisco. 90-16338 Sokovich v. Thomas. 90-15185 Souther v. Timber Products Mfrs. Trust. 90-35169, 90-35193, 90-35318 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coates. 90-15832 Stephen J. Cannell Productions, Inc. v. LJN Toys, Inc. 89-55764, 89-55766 Tedder v. Stuckey. 90-35490 Terrovona v. Peterson. 89-35157 5/23/91 ENFORCEMENT N.L.R.B. GRANTED 5/13/91 AFFIRMED U.S.T.C. 5/20/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Cal. 5/13/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Cal. 5/13/91 REVIEW DENIED B.I.A. 5/29/91 AFFIRMED C.D.Cal. 5/13/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Cal. 5/17/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Cal. 5/13/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Wash. 5/15/91 AFFIRMED E.D.Wash. 5/13/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Cal. 5/15/91 AFFIRMED D.Alaska 5/21/91 REVERSED D.Ariz. 5/16/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Cal. 5/24/91 AFFIRMED C.D.Cal. 5/20/91 AFFIRMED D.Ariz. 5/13/91 AFFIRMED D.Ariz. 5/13/91 AFFIRMED C.D.Cal. 5/23/91 APPEAL DIS- D.Nev. MISSED 5/20/91 AFFIRMED D.Nev. 5/14/91 REVERSED C.D.Cal. 5/20/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Cal. 5/29/91 AFFIRMED D.Ariz. 5/28/91 AFFIRMED D.Or. 5/24/91 VACATED IN E.D.Cal. PART, REVERSED IN PART 5/23/91 AFFIRMED IN C.D.Cal. PART, REVERSED IN PART 5/13/91 AFFIRMED IN D.Or. PART, VACATED IN PART 5/16/91 AFFIRMED W.D.Wash.
*1016DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number Date 3250 Wilshire Blvd. Bldg. v. W.R. Grace & Company... 90-55608 3250 Wilshire Blvd. Bldg. v. W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. 90-55323 Turrado-Garcia v. I.N.S. 90-70190 Underhill v. Triangle Publications, Inc. 90-55136 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Butchers Local 126, AFL-CIO v. N.L. R.B. 90-70199 U.S. v. Ali . 89-10282 U.S. v. Antone. 90-10461 U.S. v. Banda-Morantes. 90-10268 U.S. v. Beltran-Martinez. 90-50454 U.S. v. Benitez-Urquidez_ 89-10345 U.S. v. Berkowitz. 90-50467 U.S. v. Bourque. 90-50413 U.S. v. Campbell. 90-50620 U.S. v. Cardenas-Barrera .... 90-50602 U.S. v. Castro-Fierro. 90-30319 U.S. v. Chamberlain. 90-55131 U.S. v. Clark. 90-50572 U.S. v. Culbertson. 90-10435 U.S. v. Dodson. 90-10015 U.S. v. Dunham. 89-10386 U.S. v. Easley. 90-10139 U.S. v. Eychaner. 90-30236 U.S. v. Felix-Mungarro. 90-10537 U.S. v. Fitzhugh. 90-50359 U.S. v. Fukushima. 90-10219 U.S. v. Garcia. 90-10449, 91-10195 U.S. v. Garcia-Mora. 90-50573 U.S. v. Gieniec. 90-50089 U.S. v. Gonzales-Cruz. 90-30394 U.S. v. Gonzalez-Sanchez_ 90-30324 U.S. v. Gregory. 90-30327 U.S. v. Hamilton. 90-10133 U.S. v. Henderson. 90-56049 U.S. v. Hernandez-Ramon... 90-10331 U.S. v. Hix. 90-30330 U.S. v. Homniyon (Thadpong) 89-50546 5/21/91 5/21/91 5/21/91 Disposition APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 5/14/91 AFFIRMED 5/23/91 5/21/91 5/21/91 5/22/91 5/13/91 5/20/91 5/16/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/15/91 5/13/91 5/14/91 5/15/91 5/17/91 5/24/91 5/20/91 5/23/91 5/29/91 5/20/91 5/21/91 5/16/91 5/22/91 5/14/91 5/20/91 5/14/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/14/91 5/17/91 5/23/91 5/13/91 5/17/91 REVIEW DENIED APPEAL DISMISSED VACATED AFFIRMED REVERSED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) C.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. I.N.S. C.D.Cal. N.L.R.B. D.Nev. D.Ariz. D.Ariz. S.D.Cal. D.Ariz. C.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. D.Or. C.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. E.D.Cal. D.Ariz. D.Ariz. D.Nev. D.Mont. D.Ariz. S.D.Cal. N.D.Cal. E.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. D.Mont. D.Or. W.D.Wash. N.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. D.Ariz. D.Or. C.D.Cal.
*1017Title U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. U.S. v. DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Johnson . King .... Kouns... Labreche Lathen .. Ledesma. Lua . Lugpong (Sangnan) . Lugpong (Yongyoot) Lynch . Martin-Gonzalez .... Mosley. Docket Number 89-10344 90-10409 90-35714 90-30158, 90-30159, 90-30160 89-30119 90-10249, 90-10276, 90-10274 89-30124 89-50545 89-50528 90-10143 90-10054 89-50707 Date 5/20/91 5/21/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/14/91 5/23/91 5/20/91 5/17/91 5/17/91 5/15/91 5/13/91 5/28/91 Myers. 90-35736 5/13/91 Nelson . 90-10195 5/21/91 Orduno-Martinez .. ,. 89-50490, 89-50491, 89-50492, 89-50493, 89-50494, 89-50495, 89-50496, 89-50497, 89-50498, 89-50499 Pena-Fernandez . 90-10199 Pettit. 89-50582 Quinones. 90-50302 Quintero. 90-50563 Quiocho. 90-10217 Radin. 89-10538 Ramos-Quirarte. 90-30245 Rasco . 90-10251 Reed. 90-10076 Reyes-Ruiz. 90-50608 Rice. 90-10361 Robles-Arispuro. 90-10176 Rodriguez. 90-10293 Sarmiento. 90-10322 Seideman. 90-30034 Seweingyawma. 89-10476 Shamsian. 89-50372 Solomon. 90-16268 5/22/91 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART VACATED AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED 5/28/91 5/22/91 5/23/91 5/15/91 5/13/91 5/17/91 5/15/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/15/91 5/16/91 5/21/91 5/24/91 5/14/91 5/16/91 5/29/91 5/28/91 5/14/91 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) D.Ariz. E.D.Cal. W.D.Wash. D.Mont. D.Alaska E.D.Cal. D.Or. C.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. D.Hawaii N.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. D.Or. N.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. D.Ariz. S.D.Cal. C.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. D.Hawaii D.Ariz. E.D.Wash. D.Ariz. N.D.Cal. S.D.Cal. E.D.Cal. D.Ariz. E.D.Cal. D.Guam E.D.Wash. D.Ariz. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal.
*1018DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS-Title U.S. v. Tate. U.S. v. Two Cessna 210 Aircraft . U.S. v. Vallejo-Rubio. U.S. v. Webber. U.S. v. Wildee. U.S. v. Zambrano-Zaragoza.. U.S. ex rel. Richards v. Blaz Vinson v. Sullivan . Watts v. Maass. Woods v. Allen. Yanny v. Church of Scientology Intern. Zanzucchi v. Wynberg. Docket Number Date 90-10218 5/16/91 Disposition AFFIRMED 90-15778 90-10471 89-10531, 89-10535 90-10027 89-30367 90-15347 89-56321 90-35798 90-15698 90-55211 90-15381 5/23/91 5/22/91 5/17/91 5/16/91 5/15/91 5/14/91 5/15/91 5/13/91 5/23/91 5/13/91 5/21/91 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED •Continued Appeal from and Citation (if reported) N.D.CaL; Appealing after remand 855 F.2d 862 D.Ariz. E.D.Cal. D.Ariz. E.D.Cal. E.D.Wash. D.Guam S.D.Cal. D.Or. D.Ariz. C.D.Cal. D.Ariz.
*1019UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Docket Title Number Date Atwood v. Union Pacific R. Co. 90-4076 5/20/91 Barnett v. Kaiser. 90-6372 5/28/91 Branham v. U.S. 90-7071 5/28/91 Burns v. Portier. 91-1010 5/24/91 Cole v. Herman’s. 90-4033, 5/22/91 90-4036 Dale v. Davies. 90-3383 5/21/91 Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. OKC Partners, Ltd. 90-6143 5/28/91 Gomez v. Thomas. 91-3037 5/28/91 International State Bank v. Ginder. 88-2067 5/21/91 Jimenez v. Lancaster Colony Corp. 90-1133 5/20/91 Lam v. C.I.R. 87-2720 5/23/91 Ogunbiyi v. I.N.S. 88-1457 5/28/91 Ogunleye v. State of Okl. 90-5250 5/28/91 Simons v. U.S. 90-4074 5/20/91 Snow v. U.S. 90-4073 5/20/91 Stjernholm v. C.I.R. 90-9012 5/22/91 Sun v. Belaski. 90-1309 5/20/91 U.S. v. Allen. 90-3177 5/21/91 U.S. v. Bolain. 90-5194 5/24/91 U.S. v. Delaney. 90-6355 5/20/91 U.S. v. Henning. 90-5104 5/20/91 U.S. v. Jones. 90-1289 5/28/91 U.S. v. Wieburg. 90-8068 5/21/91 U.S. v. Williams. 90-3172 5/21/91 U.S. v. Wood . 90-5103 5/20/91 Disposition AFFIRMED DISMISSED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, DENIED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) D.Utah W.D.Okl. E.D.Okl. D.Colo. D.Utah D.Kan. W.D.Okl. D.Kan. D.N.M. D.Colo. U.S.T.C. I.N.S. N.D.Okl. C.D.Utah C.D.Utah U.S.T.C. D.Colo. D.Kan. N.D.Okl. W.D.Okl. N.D.Okl. D.Colo. D.Wyo. D.Kan. N.D.Okl.
*1020UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS The following cases have been decided without formal opinion prepared for publication in the permanent law reports: Docket Title Number */**pUgh v. Heinrich. 88-3943 */**U.S. v. Darwin . 88-5286, 88-6259 *Hannah v. Young. 89-3865 *U.S. v. Turner. 89-3866 *Marcelin v. U.S. 89-5931 *Garcia v. U.S. 89-6049 *Wood v. Eli Lilly Co. 89-6106 Elston v. Talladega County Bd. 89-7777 Beck v. Talladega County Bd. of Ed. 89-7917 *Nash v. Roberson . 89-8684 **U.S. v. Williams. 89-8944 */**Gale v. Phillips. 90-3028 *U.S. v. O’Brien. 90-3104 *U.S. v. Cruz. 90-3116 *Lurie v. Berkens. 90-3119 *U.S. v. Barrett. 90-3213 *U.S. v. Thompson. 90-3356 *U.S. v. Carlini. 90-3389 *U.S. v. Lane. 90-3436 *U.S. v. Lee. 90-3437 **Mosier v. Williams. 90-3447 Appeal from Date of and Citation Decision Disposition (if reported) 5/2/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla., 695 F.Supp. 533 4/26/91 AFFIRMED S.D.FIa. 4/26/91 REVERSED IN M.D.Fla. PART, VACATED IN PART 4/25/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/30/91 AFFIRMED S.D.FIa. 5/3/91 AFFIRMED S.D.FIa. 5/3/91 REVERSED IN S.D.FIa., 723 PART, VACAT- F.Supp. 1456 ED IN PART 4/30/91 REVERSED IN N.D.Ala. PART, VACATED IN PART 4/30/91 REVERSED IN N.D.Ala. PART, VACATED IN PART 4/29/91 DISMISSED M.D.Ga. 4/23/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Ga. 4/25/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/25/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Fla. 4/22/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/26/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/26/91 AFFIRMED IN M.D.Fla. PART, REVERSED IN PART 4/25/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/25/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/30/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 5/1/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Fla. 4/23/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Fla. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 11th Cir.R. 34-3. ** Local Rule 36 case.
*1021DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number */**Shannon v. United Telephone Co. 90-3473 *U.S. v. Ruiz. 90-3560 *U.S. v. Correa-Zapata. 90-3592 */**U.S. v. Johnson. 90-3630 *Haskew v. U.S. 90-3765 */**Cadle Co., II v. Spilotros .. 90-3780 **U.S. v. Gonzalez . *U.S. v. Rowland . *U.S. v. Yordi ... *Edgerton v. U.S. *U.S. v. Hodges. *U.S. v. Castaneda-Madro... *U.S. v. One 1984 Steel Hull 85". *U.S. v. Gale. *DeNavarra v. U.S. *U.S. v. Comptis. *U.S. v. Ricano. *Gaines v. Dugger. NTSB v. Hollywood Memorial Hosp. */**U.S. v. Arango. *U.S. v. Moreno. **0’Kelley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. *Behar v. U.S. *U.S. v. King. */**U.S. v. San Martin. **Crowley Caribbean v. Panama Gold . *U.S. v. Mouriz. *U.S. v. Martinez. **Kovens v. C.I.R. *U.S. v. Beasley. */**Paramanandhan v. Janovski *U.S. v. Johnson. *McRae v. Seafarers' Welfare Plan. 90-3815 90-3855 90-5043, 90-5044 90-5049 90-5173 90-5396 90-5402 90-5424 90-5451 90-5492 90-5494 90-5516 90-5527 90-5528 90-5576 90-5583 90-5607 90-5612 90-5719 90-5778 90-5802 90-6052 90-7147 90-7220 90-7250 Date of Decision 4/23/91 5/1/91 5/1/91 4/26/91 4/25/91 5/2/91 4/23/91 4/30/91 5/2/91 4/25/91 5/3/91 4/22/91 4/26/91 4/22/91 5/1/91 5/1/91 5/3/91 4/29/91 90-5521 4/23/91 5/3/91 4/24/91 4/30/91 4/30/91 4/30/91 5/2/91 4/23/91 4/30/91 4/29/91 4/23/91 4/30/91 4/22/91 5/1/91 90-7252 4/29/91 *Knight v. State of Ala. 90-7329 4/22/91 *Davis v. Wright. 90-7441 4/26/91 *Brinson v. Director, OWCP 90-7455 4/22/91 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART Appeal from and Citation (if reported) M.D.Fla. M.D.Fla. M.D.Fla. M.D.Fla. M.D.Fla. M.D.Fla., 117 B.R. 691 M.D.Fla. N.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla., 735 F.Supp. 423 S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. M.D.Ala. S.D.Ala. S.D.Ala. S.D.Ala. N.D.Ala. M.D.Ala. N.D.Ala. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 11th Cir.R. 34-3. ** Local Rule 36 case.
*1022DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Docket Title Number */**Creel Enterprises v. Gatti’s Inc. 90-7495 *Hines v. Thigpen. 90-7517 **Garrett v. City of Auburn.. 90-7542 *U.S. v. Portis. 90-7591 *U.S. v. Turner. 90-7611 */'**Jenns v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. 90-7665 *U.S. v. Charvin. 90-8020 *Causey v. Atchley. 90-8120 */**u.S. v. James. 90-8190 *U.S. v. Sullivan. 90-8204 *Coker v. Snow . 90-8218 **Cole v. Sullivan. 90-8265 "Jarallah v. Pickett Hotel Co. 90-8282 *Merritt v. U.S. 90-8385 *U.S. v. Gibbs. 90-8444 ■'Battle v. U.S. Mental Health Assoc. 90-8534 *White v. Meadows College 90-8579 *U.S. v. Hall . 90-8635 *Little v. Sullivan. 90-8695 */**Kenny v. C.I.R. 90-8710 **U.S. v. Wood. 90-8723 */**U.S. v. Egede. 90-8769 */**U.S. v. Peek. 90-8808 */**U.S. v. Johnson. 90-8859 **Butler v. Smith and Kelly Co. 90-8881 */**U.S. v. Kelly. 90-8892 **Leavell v. Trust Co. Bank.. 90-8919 *U.S. v. Dake. 90-8986 */**Karabeika v, Neal Pope Ford, Inc. 90-9040 Appeal from Date of and Citation Decision Disposition (if reported) 4/29/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ala. 5/2/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ala. 4/23/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Ala. 5/2/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Ala. 4/29/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Ala. 4/29/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Ala. 4/26/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 5/2/91 REVERSED IN N.D.Ga. PART, VACATED IN PART 5/1/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/25/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/24/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/24/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 5/2/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 5/1/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Ga. 5/1/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/24/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 5/3/91 REVERSED IN M.D.Ga. PART, VACATED IN PART 4/26/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/29/91 AFFIRMED IN M.D.Ga. PART, REVERSED IN PART 5/3/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/24/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/29/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 5/3/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/30/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Ga. 5/1/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. 4/30/91 AFFIRMED S.D.Ga. 4/24/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Ga. 4/29/91 AFFIRMED M.D.Ga. 5/3/91 AFFIRMED N.D.Ga. * Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 11th Cir.R. 34-3. ** Local Rule 36 case.
*1023UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Eleventh Circuit Rule 35) Group 1 — Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. Group 2 — Denials after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Group 3 — Denials on the Court’s own motion after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Title Docket Number GROUP 1 Barron v. Sullivan. 90-8095 Marshall v. Dugger. 89-5533 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Tinney 89-7859 Schlaebitz v. U.S. Dept, of Justice. 89-6113 Thigpen v. Thigpen. 89-7368 Woods v. Dugger. 89-3420 Date of Denial 4/24/91 4/30/91 4/23/91 4/24/91 4/29/91 5/3/91 Citation of Panel Decision M.D.Ga., 924 F.2d 227 S.D.Fla., 925 F.2d 374 M.D.Ala., 920 F.2d 861 S.D.Fla., 924 . F.2d 193 S.D.Ala., 926 F.2d 1003 M.D.Fla., 923 F.2d 1454

. Of course, we recognize that jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, even on appeal, and by no means do we imply that the government, because of improper or deficient pleading before the Board, has waived, or could waive or moot an issue of the Board’s jurisdiction. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986); Grumman Aerospace, 927 F.2d at 580 ("Subject matter jurisdiction may be addressed at any time.”). However, we do note that on appeal to this court, the government has still not cited any evidence that Mr. Turner was not a proper certifying officer.

. Whether Newport News was required to specifically plead that Mr. Turner has "overall responsibility for the conduct of the contractor's affairs” is not at issue. Indeed, it appears that the certification by a corporate officer, without explanation, necessarily implies that the contractor is representing that he has the requisite "overall authority," at least where his title is not inconsistent therewith. Cf. Grumman Aerospace, 927 F.2d at 581 (certification by senior vice president and treasurer). Apparently that is the case here, where Newport News’ sole "Executive Vice President" is listed directly under the Chairman and President and above other corporate officers and officials. Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors & Executives, Vol. 1 (1991) at 1939.

. Indeed, if anything, our precedent suggests that an Executive Vice President, who, by title, clearly is a corporate officer with overall responsibilities, may certify a claim. Grumman Aerospace, 927 F.2d at 581 ("Certainly a [Chief Executive Officer] or one of equivalent status would satisfy" subparagraph (ii). (Emphasis added.)) Moreover, as noted above, the government has never disputed that Mr. Turner was Newport News’ Executive Vice President at the time of certification and only complains on appeal that he was not proven to have had "overall responsibility." According to the government, "the record of the proceeding before the board is devoid of any evidence whatsoever of the nature of the duties, responsibilities, or even the authority of Mr. Turner.” Govt. Br. at 16. However, the government’s conclusion as to the sufficiency of the information on jurisdiction considered by the Board is not relevant to whether it created a genuine dispute before the Board.

. The Board was primarily concerned that
[g]iven the state of the law, namely, that if the certification of a claim is invalid all proceedings are null and void, the Government certainly has an obligation to raise this issue as early in any Board proceeding as possible if it intends to challenge the authority of a particular officer to execute a valid certification. Further, it should be by appropriate motion or pleading, not included among numerous paragraphs opposing a motion for summary judgment.
Newport News, slip op. at 4. However, while the government should have challenged the certification more properly in a motion to dismiss, the Board did not err by deciding its jurisdiction in relation to its grant of summary judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 588 (8th Cir.1991) (defendant failed to create a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment on whether subject matter jurisdiction existed); Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2713 (1983).