
    Marie ANDERSON, Alvester Brafort, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. H&R BLOCK, INC., Beneficial National Bank, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-11863.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 3, 2003.
    K. Stephen Jackson, Jeff S. Daniel, Jackson, Fraley & Shuttlesworth, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Peter Sean Fruin, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Stewart M. Cox, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, A. Inge Selden, III, Stephen Clark Jackson, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Burt M. Rublin, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Howard N. Cayne, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

On June 2, 2003, the United States Supreme Court reversed our decision in this matter, holding that “an action filed in a state court to recover damages from a national bank for allegedly charging excessive interest in violation of both ‘the common law usury doctrine’ and an Alabama usury statute may be removed to a federal court because it actually arises under federal law.” Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2058, 156 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003). In light of the Supreme Court’s holding, we AFFIRM and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  