law, Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567-68 (5th Cir.2003), but that is not the situation here. 10 . Irrespective of whether Tate both possesses a liberty interest and was denied due process under Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005)— issues that neither the majority nor I address — Tate did not show — before the district court granted summary judgment — any competent evidence of either a liberty interest or a due process violation, let alone sufficient evidence to satisfy his burden to defeat summary judgment. See Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir.2010) ("[Tjhe nonmov-ing party cannot survive a summary judgment motion by resting on the mere allegations of its pleadings.”). 11 . See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (<HOLDING>). 12 .See Fanning v. Metro. Transit Auth., 141
holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed holding evidence was not newly discovered because the underlying facts were well within the partys knowledge prior to the district courts entry of judgment