IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-40145 March 10, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUL J. GUERRA, JR.; JOSE E. GUERRA; ROBERT L. GUERRA; SYLVIA GUERRA MECKEL; BIANCA GUERRA, Formerly Known as Bea Ann Guerra; GREGORY M. POWERS, as Administrator of the Estate of Raul Tijerina, Jr.; RAUL TIJERINA, JR., the Estate of; CARLOS ANDRES LOZANO; RAUL CORONADO LOZANO; ANNA MARIA LOZANO; JESUS M. CASTELLANO; JOSEFA T. CASTELLANO; SARA C. SALDANA; JOSEFA C. CAPPADONA; GLORIA C. MOORE; MARIA LUCILA CASTELLANO; HERLINDA TOMASITA LOZANO, Also Known as Linda Lozano; HORTENSIA TIJERINA; DAVID JOSE SANCHEZ, Independent Executor of the Estate of Maria Alicia T. Sanchez, Defendants-Appellants, versus ARTURO E. GUERRA, JR., Individually and as Trustee for the Gloriana Guerra Trust; SHERRY WARE BROWN; JEANETTE MARKEL; FRED E. SEAL; LARRY ELIOT SEAL; JOHN RUSSELL WARE, Defendants-Appellees, versus JOSEPH CASTELLANO; SONIA SANCHEZ PENA; ENRIQUE SANCHEZ, LOUIS SANCHEZ, Appellants.  Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 7:06-CV-307 Before SMITH, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this interpleader action, the parties dispute the interpretation of a 1943 oil and gas lease. Before transferring this matter to the Southern District of Texas, the district court for the Western District of Texas decided, inter alia, that the lease is a community lease, so the court had jurisdiction, and therefore interpleader was proper, and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. had no additional liability to the royalty owners. After transfer, the district court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment, concluding that the “well bottom location controls payment of excess royalties” under the lease. We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We also have consulted applicable sources of law. Both district courts correctly decided this case. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district courts. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 2