Case: 15-10958 Document: 00513462891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-10958 April 13, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel; PHI-NGA JEANNIE LE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
STANLEY THAW; MICHAEL KINCAID,
Defendants-Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CV-2482
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Relator Phi-Nga Jeannie Le filed a qui tam complaint on behalf of herself
and the United States against, among other defendants, Stanley Thaw and
Michael Kincaid. She alleged three claims under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. The district court granted Le’s motion for partial
summary judgment on claims one and three of her complaint and her motion
for entry of judgment and entered judgment against Thaw and Kincaid in the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-10958 Document: 00513462891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2016
No. 15-10958
amount of $2,106,838.92 and for reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
costs.
The district court dismissed some but not all claims; we must sua sponte
examine whether we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Martin v.
Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction over
appeals from (1) final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are
deemed final due to a jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral order
doctrine; (3) interlocutory orders specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and
(4) interlocutory orders that are properly certified for appeal by the district
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or § 1292(b). Dardar
v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc.
v. U.S. Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1981). The order from which
Thaw and Kincaid appeal does not fall within any of these categories, so we
lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Thaw and Kincaid’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal is DENIED. Their motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.
See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1985).
2