
    Dawud Halisi MALIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neal BROWN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 91-36320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Sept. 8, 1995.
    
      Before BEEZER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge
    
    
      
      
         The Honorable Samuel Conti, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

Sua sponte, we recall the mandate. Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988).

It has come to the attention of the court that Congress adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-l to 2000bb — 4 (“RFRA”), prior to the date our opinion was filed. RFRA was not called to our attention by the parties in a post-filing petition. Our research did not disclose its existence prior to filing.

RFRA sets a different standard than the one adopted in our opinion. Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333-34 (9th Cir.1994). If we applied RFRA, Malik would still have been the prevailing party. This order memorializes our adoption of RFRA as the proper standard governing this case.

Upon entry of this ORDER, the mandate shall issue forthwith.  