UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1903

BARBARA S. MINNICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN M. DEUTCH, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2152

BARBARA S. MINNICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN M. DEUTCH, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2153

BARBARA S. MINNICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JOHN M. DEUTCH, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-266-A, CA-96-664-A) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara S. Minnich, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Appellant appeals from the dis- trict court's orders denying relief in her actions against the Central Intelligence Agency. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error.

In Appeal No. 96-1903, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Minnich v. Deutch, No. CA-96-266-A (E.D. Va. May 24, 1996). In Appeal Nos. 96-2152 and 96-2153, the district court denied relief for the reasons stated from the bench. Appellant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing at which the district court stated the reasons for denying relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992). More- over, Appellant has failed to state a substantial claim justifying preparation of a transcript at government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). Consequently, in Nos. 96-2152 and 96-2153, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED