              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                      _____________________

                           No. 96-31312
                      _____________________


LARRY D. CROWE; SUE ELLEN
SILMAN CROWE, Administratrix,
on behalf of Reba Coody
Crowe Succession,

                                              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                versus

JAMES W. SMITH, ET AL.,

                                                         Defendants,

DEUTSCH KERRIGAN & STILES;
JUDY L. BURNTHORN; WILLIAM WRIGHT;
JAMES BERRY; DAVID C. TREEN;
WILLIAM W. MESSERSMITH, III;
CHARLES K. REASONOVER; DAVID L.
CAMPBELL; CHARLES F. SEEMANN, JR.;
BERTRAND M. CASS, JR.; HARRY S.
ANDERSON; FRANCIS J. BARRY, JR.;
PATRICK J. BERRIGAN; ALLEN F.
CAMPBELL; MATT J. FARLEY; G. ALEX
WELLER; DANIEL A. SMITH; ETHEL H.
COHEN; TERRENCE L. BRENNAN;
MARC J. YELLIN; HOWARD L. MURPHY;
DARRELL K. CHERRY; RICHARD B.
MONTGOMERY; PAUL S. HUGHES;
NANCY J. MARSHALL; JAMES G. WILEY,
III; D. REX ENGLISH; ELLIS B.
MUROV; JOSEPH L. McREYNOLDS;
JOSEPH L. SPILMAN, III; DURIS L.
HOLMES; WILLIAM LEE KOHLER; ATTORNEYS
LIABILITY ASSURANCE SOCIETY, INC.,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
              Western District of Louisiana, Monroe
                           (92-CV-2163)
_________________________________________________________________

                          April 10, 1998
Before GIBSON,* JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

     The only question before us in this appeal is whether the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing this case with

prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).      We have reviewed and

considered fully the circumstances and context in which this

judgment was entered, including the related matter of the Crowes’

purported prior notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1).   Additionally, we have had the benefit of full briefing

and argument by counsel.   We finally conclude that when all the

circumstances and authorities have been considered, we cannot say

that the district court abused its discretion.    Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is

                                                  A F F I R M E D.




     *
      Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
     **
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.




                                -2-
