American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 840 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 888, 109 S.Ct. 219, 102 L.Ed.2d 88 (5th Cir.1991). 57 . Nowlin v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 33 F.3d 498, 505 (5th Cir.1994). 58 . See United States v. Bloom, 112 F.3d at 205 n. 17; Becerra v. Asher, 105 F.3d 1042, 1048 (5th Cir.1997); Liquid Drill, Inc. v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc., 48 F.3d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1995); Exxon Corporation v. Crosby-Mississippi Resources, Ltd., 40 F.3d 1474, 1487 (5th Cir.1995); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346; Wichita Falls Office Assoc, v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct 2340, 124 L.Ed.2d 251 (1993); Cormier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d at 1561; International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d at 1267, (<HOLDING>); McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d at 1088;
recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that under rule 56f nonmoving party seeking additional discovery must demonstrate precisely how additional discovery will lead to a genuine issue of material fact holding that the nonmoving parly must show how additional discovery will defeat the summary judgment motion ie create a genuine dispute as to a material fact and that the nonmoving party must show that he has diligently pursued discovery of the evidence in question holding that when the nonmoving party requests a delay in ruling on a summary judgment motion until further discovery may be completed the party must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence holding that the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings to show that there is a genuine issue for trial