Filed: Mar. 11, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 11, 2005 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk No. 04–20554 _ RODMAN A EGGEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD; SASOL LIMITED; SASOL HOLDING BV; SASOL SYNTHETIC FUELS LTD, Defendants - Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (No. 4:02–CV–1822) _ Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURI
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 11, 2005 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk No. 04–20554 _ RODMAN A EGGEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD; SASOL LIMITED; SASOL HOLDING BV; SASOL SYNTHETIC FUELS LTD, Defendants - Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (No. 4:02–CV–1822) _ Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIA..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 11, 2005 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III __________________________ Clerk No. 04–20554 __________________________ RODMAN A EGGEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD; SASOL LIMITED; SASOL HOLDING BV; SASOL SYNTHETIC FUELS LTD, Defendants - Appellees. ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (No. 4:02–CV–1822) ___________________________________________________ Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This Court has considered Eggen’s position in light of the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and oral argument. Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law and AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
