court need not “grant review of all claims that raise a question about the proper interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.” Id, at 316. The district court does not abuse its discretion when it declines to review a decision that presents “no pressing question of how the Settlement Agreement should be interpreted or implemented, but simply raise[s] the correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant’s case.” Claimant ID 100212278, 848 F.3d at 410 (quoting In re Deepwater Horizon, 641 Fed.Appx. at 410). On the other hand, denying review of a significant and recurring issue that has split numer ous Appeal Panels might be an abuse of discretion. See id.; cf. In re Deepwater Horizon, 632 Fed.Appx. 199, 203-04 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). III. We have no trouble concluding that LTCF
holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that district court abused discretion by denying review where over thirty appeal panels had heard appeals on the issue and issued conflicting decisions