IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 97-20444 Summary Calendar _____________________

WALTER D. CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ARAMCO SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-95-CV-3853) _______________________________________________________ March 19, 1998 Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. That court thoroughly considered and discussed the evidence Carmichael offered to resist summary judgment. We agree with the order of February 20, 1997. There is no evidence that ASC’s reduction of workforce was subterfuge. The reference to age in Sultz’s deposition was made in discussion of the earlier reclassification decision and, as

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. explained, had no probative weight. Vellozzi’s memorandum was not written with knowledge of the later reduction in force. And the list of employees over 50 presents no evidence of discrimination.

AFFIRMED