UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                          __________________

                             No. 01-10575
                          __________________



     JUAN SORIA,

                                         Petitioner,

                                versus

     GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
     TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
     INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

                                         Respondent.
                _______________________________________

     WILLIAM STANLEY HARRIS; GARY A TAYLOR,

                                         Appellants.



         _______________________________________________

       Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Northern District of Texas
                           4:98-CV-1067)
          ______________________________________________
                         January 28, 2002

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

     IT IS ORDERED that the appellants’ motion for reconsideration,

treated as a petition for panel rehearing, is GRANTED. Appellants’

motion to vacate the order of July 23, 2001 is GRANTED. The appellants’
motion to reinstate the appeal is GRANTED.

     In the order of dismissal filed July 23, 2001, this Court found

that it had “no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the denial of

a request for compensation under [21 U.S.C.] § 848(q)(8).”          The

appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which this Court ordered

to remain pending until further notice.

     Very recently, this Court issued a published opinion addressing

the jurisdictional question at bar. Clark v. Johnson, __ F.3d __, 

(5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2002) (01-10573).     As a question of first

impression in this circuit, this Court concluded that we did indeed have

appellate jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a district court’s

order denying compensation under § 848(q)(4)(B).           

Accordingly, we vacate our prior order of dismissal and reinstate the

appeal.

     The next question is whether district court correctly concluded

that § 848(q)(8) did not authorize compensation for attorneys in state

clemency and competency proceedings. In Clark, this Court, construing

the statute narrowly, concluded that the “phrase ‘proceeding for

executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendants’ as

it appears in §848(q)(8) does not apply to state clemency proceedings.”

  We are bound by that decision and thus must affirm the

district court’s order in the instant case.

     AFFIRMED.




                                   2