              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                            _____________________
                                 No. 99-20455
                            _____________________


     PRIME AIR, INC., doing business as
     Transmeridian Airlines,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                      versus
     INVESTORS ASSET HOLDING
     CORPORATION, As Trustee For
     Airfund II International Partnership;
     ET AL.,

                                                 Defendants,
     INVESTORS ASSET HOLDING
     CORPORATION, As Trustee For
     Airfund II International Partnership;
     PLM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

      _______________________________________________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court for
                         the Southern District of Texas

                       (D.C. No. H-96-CV-3804)
      _______________________________________________________
                            March 27, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

•       Prime Air is bound by the lease’s unambiguous “as is, where is” provision,

        and its breach-of-contract claims therefore fail as a matter of law;
•       Prime Air’s fraud claims were properly dismissed because they were not

        pleaded with sufficient particularity under FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b);

•       Prime Air failed to obtain a ruling on its request to replead;

•       Prime air raised no genuine issue of material fact regarding its claims of civil
        conspiracy, tortious interference, negligence, and gross negligence; and
•       Prime Air’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by
        reconsidering Investors Asset’s motion for summary judgment is moot.

AFFIRMED.




    *
    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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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
