                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                           No. 02-10188
                         Summary Calendar


                    FRANK J. STANGEL, ET AL.,

                                                        Plaintiffs,

               FRANK J. STANGEL; GAIL A. CORRENTI,

                                            Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                              versus

         A-1 FREEMAN NORTH AMERICAN, INC., Etc.; ET AL.,

                                                        Defendants,

   A-1 FREEMAN NORTH AMERICAN, INC., Agent for North American
               Van Lines, an Oklahoma Corporation,

                                                Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                         (3:01-CV-2200-L)
________________________________________________________________
                        November 12, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Plaintiffs Frank J. Stangel and Gail A. Correnti, pro se,

appeal the district court’s order remanding their case to state

court (plaintiffs had removed it to district court) and awarding A-

     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1 Freeman North American, Inc. (A-1), $2,639.15 in attorney’s fees

and costs.

     Because the district court determined that it did not have

subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy, this court lacks

jurisdiction.   The appeal must be DISMISSED IN PART.   See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c) & (d); see also, e.g., Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card

Bank of Ga., 231 F.3d 994, 997 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533

U.S. 915 (2001).

     Because Stangel and Correnti have not shown that the district

court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs,

see Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir.

2000), that ruling is AFFIRMED.

     Stangel and Correnti’s motion to “supplement, modify and

clarify the record” is DENIED.   See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson,

185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).

         DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART; MOTION DENIED




                                  2
