                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                                                 F I L E D
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS          December 11, 2003

                                                              Charles R. Fulbruge III
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                        Clerk
                         _____________________

                              No. 03-30460
                         _____________________

4-MALI L.L.C.,
                                                    Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                 versus

BANKERS INSURANCE CO.,

                                                    Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
                        USDC No. 01-CV-1184
_________________________________________________________________

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     4-Mali L.L.C. (“4-Mali”) appeals the district court’s judgment

dismissing its complaint claiming flood insurance coverage.              The

district court held that 4-Mali’s claims were not covered by a

Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”), and that, in any event,

4-Mali   had    failed   to   comply   with   the    SFIP’s    procedural

requirements.     We hold that the district court did not err in

finding that 4-Mali’s failure to provide a proof of loss statement

within sixty days of the flood precludes coverage.        See Gowland v.


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Aetna, 143 F.3d 951, 953-54 (5th Cir. 1998).   As such, we need not

evaluate the scope of the SFIP’s coverage.     The judgment of the

district court is therefore

                                                          AFFIRMED.
