REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 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, v. 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 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, 307 F.3d 317

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. 229, 122 S.Ct. 1290, 152 L.Ed.2d 346 (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.