                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             _____________________

                                  No. 00-30103
                             _____________________



ASBESTOS   WORKERS   LOCAL   53   PENSION FUND;
ASBESTOS   WORKERS   LOCAL   53   WELFARE FUND;
ASBESTOS   WORKERS   LOCAL   53   VACATION FUND;
ASBESTOS   WORKERS   LOCAL   53   APPRENTICESHIP
FUND,

                                                     Plaintiffs-Appellees,

                                     versus

INTERNATIONAL    MAINTENANCE CORPORATION,
                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
            Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
                       USDC No. 98-CV-2017-J
_________________________________________________________________
                          December 21, 2000
Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

     After a review of the briefs and records in this case, and

consideration of the arguments of counsel, we affirm the district

court’s judgment.     We conclude that the district court did not err

in holding that Asbestos Workers Local 53 Pension Fund and the

other benefit trust funds in this case have standing to recover

     *
      Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
benefit    contributions,   and   that   International   Maintenance

Corporation (“IMC”) violated the collective bargaining agreement

(“CBA”).   Furthermore, we note that IMC did not meet the burden of

proof necessary to show that it complied with the hiring hall

clause of the CBA in hiring Raymond Aymond and Jerry Bendily.   The

judgment of the district court is, therefore,

                                                  A F F I R M E D .




                                  2
