                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                     _______________________

                           No. 00-20065
                     _______________________


In the Matter of: ROSALIND LOUISE GRAHAM,

                                                          Debtor,

ROSALIND LOUISE GRAHAM,

                                                       Appellant,

                               versus

IRENE CAFCALAS HOFHEINZ FOUNDATION,

                                                        Appellee,
.

In the Matter of: ROSALIND LOUISE GRAHAM,

                                                          Debtor,

ROSALIND LOUISE GRAHAM,

                                                       Appellant.



_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
     Civil Docket Nos. #H-98-2326; H-98-CV-2806; H-98-CV-2807
_________________________________________________________________

                          November 16, 2000

Before GOODWIN*, GARWOOD, and JONES, Circuit Judges.




     *
      Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:**

          The court, having carefully considered this appeal in

light of the briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the

record, finds no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s finding that

the sale of Graham’s residence, if it was a homestead at the date

of sale, was known about and approved by Mrs. Graham, who thus

abandoned her homestead exemption.       Further, the bankruptcy court

did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its original May 27,

1997 order, when evidence of the 1992 chapter 13 case first came to

light, or in rejecting appellant’s motion to reconsider following

the November,   1997   judgment.       Finally,   the   ex   parte   hearing

conducted by the bankruptcy court in September, 1996 did not

prejudice appellant.

          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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
