UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1159

In Re: JONATHAN H. SCOTT, Debtor. _________________________

JONATHAN H. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ROBERTA L. SCOTT; JAMES P. SCOTT, Parties in Interest, versus

BARRONS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-1160

In Re: RIXIE L. SCOTT, Debtor. _________________________ RIXIE L. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

ROBERTA L. SCOTT; JAMES P. SCOTT, Parties in Interest, versus

BARRONS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-1161

In Re: ROBERTA L. SCOTT and DAVID W. SCOTT, Debtors. _________________________

DAVID W. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

JAMES P. SCOTT, Party in Interest, versus

BARRONS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-3150-AW, CA-97-3151-AW, CA-97-3152-AW, BK-10186-PM, BK-95- 15350-DK, BK-95-17837-PM, AP-96-1099, AP-96-1024, AP-96-1053, AP- 96-1024)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan H. Scott, Rixie L. Scott, David W. Scott, Appellants Pro Se. Alan Lloyd Fishbein, FISHBEIN & FISHBEIN, P.A., Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order affirming the order of the bankruptcy court denying Appellants' discharges in bankruptcy. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Scott v. Barrons, Nos. CA-97-3150- AW; BK-96-10186-PM; CA-97-3151-AW; BK-95-15350-DK; CA-97-3152-AW; BK-95-17837-PM (D. Md. Jan. 5 & 15, 1998). 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