ex rel. George Gage v. Davis S.R. Aviation, L.L.C., — Fed.Appx.-, 2015 WL 4237682, at *1 (5th Cir. July 14, 2015). 2 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) ("In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.”); see also Gage, — Fed.Appx. at -, 2015 WL 4237682, at *2 ("Rule 9(b) requires, at a minimum, that a plaintiff set forth the 'who, what, when, where, and how’ of the alleged fraud.” (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir.2010))). 3 .Gage, — Fed.Appx. at -, 2015 WL 4237682, at *5. 4 . Frew v. Janek, 780 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir.2015). But see Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d
holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo recognizing de novo standard of review holding that review of a rule 60b4 motion is de novo holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard