UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN RECTOR, Trustee, EDWIN
RECTOR, in his personal capacity;
EDWIN RECTOR 1995 CHARITABLE
REMAINDER TRUST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ALLEN D. WYKLE; STEPHEN R.
KINNIER; APPROVED FEDERAL SAVINGS
                                                               No. 00-1139
BANK; APPROVED FINANCIAL
CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.; PRICE
WATERHOUSE; PETER COODE; PATRICK
M. BARBERICH; GRAY LAMBE,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-99-499-A)

Submitted: July 20, 2000

Decided: September 14, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Thomas H. Roberts, Tim Schulte, THOMAS H. ROBERTS & ASSO-
CIATES, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Glen Michael
Robertson, PAYNE, GATES, FARTHING & RADD, P.C., Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Rector, individually and in his capacity as trustee for the
Edwin Rector 1995 Charitable Remainder Trust ("Trust"), and the
Trust appeal from the district court's order awarding four Defendants
in this action attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $33,503.82.
The attorney's fees constituted a sanction imposed pursuant to Fed-
eral Rule Civil Procedure 11. In setting the amount of the sanction,
the district court referred not to case law interpreting Rule 11, but to
case law addressing sanctions imposed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1988(b) (West Supp. 2000). Factors governing the amount of sanc-
tions awarded under Rule 11 are quite different from factors govern-
ing the amount of attorney's fees awarded under§ 1988. Compare In
re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 523-25 (4th Cir. 1990), with Johnson v.
Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).
Because the incorrect standard was used, it is impossible to determine
whether the district court abused its discretion in setting the amount
of the sanction. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court.
The matter is remanded so that the district court may apply the proper
standard in assessing the Rule 11 sanction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2
