O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.).

The United States Forest Service appeals from the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) to plaintiff Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (“BCA”). Because we hold that plaintiff was not a “prevailing party” in the underlying litigation, we reverse the district court’s award of fees and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

The EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party… fees and other expenses… incurred by that party in any civil action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). BCA claims it is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA as a “prevailing party” because of victories it obtained in a dispute over defendant United States Forest Service’s proposed usage of land in the Black Hills National Forest.

In 2003, the Forest Service came up with several proposals for the management and future development of the Black Hills National Forest. One of the proposals, called the Cement Project, included a sale of timber in the Cement Area of that forest. The Forest Service sought an environmental assessment of this sale and concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact. As a result, the Forest Service authorized the sale of several thousand acres of timber in the Cement Area.

BCA, who had registered its opposition to the Cement Project before the agency, filed suit in 2004. It claimed that the Forest Service’s actions with regards

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired).

The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), Pub.L. No. 105–353, 112 Stat. 3227, “provides that private state-law ‘covered’ class actions alleging untruth or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a ‘covered’ security may not ‘be maintained in any State or Federal court.’ ” Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 636–37, 126 S.Ct. 2145, 165 L.Ed.2d 92 (2006) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)). In this case, the district court dismissed Jerry L. Demings’s proposed class-action lawsuit after determining that it was precluded under SLUSA. Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms. Instead, he argues that his suit fits within the “state actions” exception to SLUSA preclusion. 15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(2)(A). We agree with the district court and find that the proposed class action does not fit within the narrow state-actions exception to SLUSA preclusion. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment dismissing the suit.

I.

Jerry L. Demings is the Sheriff of Orange County Florida. In his capacity as sheriff, he sponsors a § 457 “deferred compensation plan” for his employees. See 26 U.S.C. § 457(b). Employees who participate in the plan have individually funded accounts and—through the plan’s contracts with Nationwide Life Insurance Co., Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., and Nationwide

O’CONNOR, Supreme Court Justice (Ret.):

Claiming to be the holder in due course of a commercial loan on which Appellant Michael McCranie had defaulted, Appellee DZ Bank brought an enforcement suit in federal district court. McCranie defended the suit on the grounds that DZ Bank was not in fact a holder of the loan because of a problem in the chain of title, and that even if it was, it had obtained the loan subject to certain valid defenses that prevented enforcement. The District Court granted summary judgment to DZ Bank. Because we find that the facts surrounding the loan’s chain of title were in material dispute, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Although our ultimate point is that there are some key facts in dispute, many of them are uncontested. In October 2000, McCranie entered into an agreement with Brooke Corporation, an insurance franchising company, to buy a local franchise in Florida. McCranie borrowed money from a Brooke affiliate called Brooke Credit to finance the sale, and agreed in return to write policies exclusively through Brooke, paying off the loan over time with his commissions. See Dkt. No. 63–1 at 1–4; Dkt. No. 54–1 at 2. The original note, as well as a supplemental note executed in 2002, were both made payable only to Brooke Credit or its successors and assigns. See Dkt. No. 63–1 at 27; Dkt. No. 54–1 at 6.

Trouble arose in August 2008, when McCranie became aware of serious allegations of wrongdoing at Brooke. According to McCranie,

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired).

This is a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Szczecin, Poland to Toledo, Ohio. The central issue in this appeal is whether a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel qualifies as a “carrier” under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). We agree with the district court’s finding that such a manager is not a COGSA carrier, and therefore COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit. We also reject Appellant’s argument that the district court’s judgment rested on clearly erroneous factual findings, and we AFFIRM.

I.

Fortis Corporate Insurance insured a cargo of 176 steel coils belonging to Metallia LLC. The coils were carried from Szczecin, Poland to Toledo, Ohio aboard the M/V Inviken, a 17,313 gross ton bulk carrier. During the journey, seawater entered the cargo hold containing the steel coils and caused significant rust damage to 99 of them. Fortis, as underwriter, paid Metallia $375,000 for the damage to the steel coils. Fortis then brought a lawsuit as Metallia’s subrogee, alleging negligence and breach of bailment against the Inviken’s owner, Viken Lakers, along with the ship’s manager, Viken Ship Management (VSM).

Fortis I

This dispute has previously come before this court. See Fortis Corporate Ins. v.

O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.).

This case considers the response of the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to Donald Greer’s complaint filed under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), as amended. Because the OFCCP promptly discharged its duty to conduct an investigation into Greer’s administrative complaint, we conclude that the Secretary of Labor’s response in this case represents a decision committed to agency discretion and is, therefore, immune from judicial review.

I.

The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), as amended, provides that the federal government shall require its contractors to “take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified covered veterans.” 38 U.S.C. § 4212(a). In addition, the statute provides that a covered veteran who believes that a government contractor has not complied with VEVRAA “may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, who shall promptly investigate such complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of the contract and applicable laws and regulations.” 38 U.S.C. § 4212(b). The Secretary of Labor has charged the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) with investigating complaints made against contractors. 41 C.F.R. 60–250.60, 60–250.61(a). After the OFCCP receives such a complaint, it is directed to “prompt[ly] investigat[e],” 41 C.F.R. 60–250.61(d), and determine whether

Before: SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice,* ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.):

Arizona’s Constitution provides: “No person who is adjudicated an incapacitated person shall be qualified to vote at any election, nor shall any person convicted of treason or felony, be qualified to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights.” Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2. Arizona statutes give effect to this constitutional provision by suspending the voting rights of any person convicted of a felony, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13–904(A)(1), and automatically restoring those rights to any person convicted of only one felony, provided he: “1. Completes a term of probation or receives an absolute discharge from imprisonment,” and “2. Pays any fine or restitution imposed.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13–912(A).

Plaintiffs brought suits challenging Arizona’s disenfranchisement scheme. Their first argument was that disenfranchisement for felonies not recognized as such at common law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While plaintiffs acknowledged that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment insulates felon-disenfranchisement schemes from equal protection challenges to some extent, seeRichardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 94 S.Ct. 2655, 41 L.Ed.2d 551 (1974), they argued that Section 2 only permits disenfranchisement for common-law felonies. In their view, disenfranchisement for statutory felonies not recognized

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.).

This case involves a property dispute over 6.4 acres on the shoreline of Reelfoot Lake. Natalie Hornbeak–Denton and Anne Hornbeak (Appellants) claim ownership of the land and have taken various measures consistent with that claim (such as excluding the public from the property and soliciting buyers for portions of it). Tennessee also asserts ownership of this 6.4–acre parcel of land. Officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA1) informed Appellants of Tennessee’s ownership claim. They also threatened to bring a lawsuit against Appellants if they continued to exert control over the disputed territory. Appellants struck first and filed their own § 1983 suit against TWRA, arguing that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when TWRA officials threatened to file a lawsuit against them. Appellants argue that the threat constituted a final determination of property rights without due process of law and amounted to retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize TWRA. The district court granted TWRA’s motion to dismiss on the pleadings, and we affirm.

I.

“The beauty of Reelfoot Lake is a natural resource unparalleled in its region.” Bunch v. Hodel, 793 F.2d 129, 130 (6th Cir.1986). Despite its beauty, Reelfoot Lake has been the source of considerable conflict (both human and natural) since its beginning. The lake was formed in the aftermath

O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.).

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment holding that the Bureau lacks authority to issue a letter requiring a small percentage of licensed firearms dealers to submit portions of their records relating to secondhand firearms. Because we find that the Bureau acted within its statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A), we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We affirm, however, the district court’s determination that the Bureau did not act in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in deciding which dealers should receive the disputed letter.

I.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., requires persons wishing to “engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms” to apply for and obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.1 18 U.S.C. § 923(a). Successful applicants, known as federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”), must create and maintain detailed records documenting the firearms transactions that they conduct. When FFL dealers receive a firearm they must record “the date of receipt, the name and address or the name and license number of the person from whom received, the name of the manufacturer and importer (if any), the model, serial number, type, and the caliber or gauge.” 27 C.F.R. § 478.125(e). After selling a firearm, FFL dealers must further record the name and address

O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired).

Appellant John McGill appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him on his claims that his insurer breached its insurance contract and its fiduciary duty, and engaged in misrepresentation and fraud. Because the insurer never contracted to pay McGill disability benefits until age 65, we affirm.

I.

As this case arises on summary judgment, we state the facts in the light most favorable to appellant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256–57, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Maldonado–Denis v. Castillo–Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 581 (1st Cir.1994).

John McGill was employed by Eastern Shore Printing Corporation of Virginia, later renamed the Interflex Group (“Interflex”). In May of 1992, McGill spoke with a broker, who sold insurance through appellee Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MML”), about obtaining disability insurance.

McGill applied for insurance that would have provided benefits, if disabled, until he reached the age of 65. On his application, he included both his home address and his work address, and indicated that he wished MML to send correspondence to his work address.

After he submitted his application, MML went through standard procedures to determine coverage: It sent a nurse to his office to perform a physical, and obtained McGill’s medical records. On the basis of that information, MML chose not to issue a policy that would provide benefits until McGill reached 65. Instead,