Republic of Panama, et al v. Amer Tobacco Co Inc,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30687
REPUBLIC OF PANAMA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
FORTUNE BRANDS, INC., formerly known as
American Brands, Inc.; R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.;
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., individually
and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company;
BATUS, INC.; BATUS HOLDINGS, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS, INC.;
PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC.; LORILLARD TOBACCO CO.;
LIGGETT GROUP, INC.; THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC.;
QUAGLINO TOBACCO AND CANDY COMPANY, INC.;
J & R VENDING SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellants.
SAO PAULO STATE,
of the Federative Republic of Brazil,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants,
FORTUNE BRANDS, INC., formerly known as
American Brands, Inc.; R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.;
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., individually

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company;
BATUS, INC.; BATUS HOLDINGS, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS, INC.;
PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC.; LORILLARD TOBACCO CO.;
LIGGETT GROUP, INC.; THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC.;
QUAGLINO TOBACCO AND CANDY COMPANY, INC.;
J & R VENDING SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
September 18, 2002
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On April 1, 2002 the Supreme Court of the United States
granted certiorari in this matter, and simultaneously filed an
opinion reversing the judgment of this court and remanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. See Sao
Paulo, State of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. American
Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1290 (2002). In accordance
with that opinion, in which the Supreme Court concluded that a
reasonable person apprised of the facts would not believe that
the district judge had any interest or bias, id. at ___, 122 S.
Ct. at 1292, the district court’s order denying recusal is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --