UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 01-10575
__________________
JUAN SORIA,
Petitioner,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
WILLIAM STANLEY HARRIS; GARY A TAYLOR,
Appellants.
_______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
4:98-CV-1067)
______________________________________________
January 28, 2002
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED that the appellants’ motion for reconsideration,
treated as a petition for panel rehearing, is GRANTED. Appellants’
motion to vacate the order of July 23, 2001 is GRANTED. The appellants’
motion to reinstate the appeal is GRANTED.
In the order of dismissal filed July 23, 2001, this Court found
that it had “no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the denial of
a request for compensation under [21 U.S.C.] § 848(q)(8).” The
appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which this Court ordered
to remain pending until further notice.
Very recently, this Court issued a published opinion addressing
the jurisdictional question at bar. Clark v. Johnson, __ F.3d __, 2002
WL 5590 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2002) (01-10573). As a question of first
impression in this circuit, this Court concluded that we did indeed have
appellate jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a district court’s
order denying compensation under § 848(q)(4)(B). Id. at *2.
Accordingly, we vacate our prior order of dismissal and reinstate the
appeal.
The next question is whether district court correctly concluded
that § 848(q)(8) did not authorize compensation for attorneys in state
clemency and competency proceedings. In Clark, this Court, construing
the statute narrowly, concluded that the “phrase ‘proceeding for
executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendants’ as
it appears in §848(q)(8) does not apply to state clemency proceedings.”
Id. at *4. We are bound by that decision and thus must affirm the
district court’s order in the instant case.
AFFIRMED.
2