UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2246

FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE E. BURDICK; MARY K. BURDICK,

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 98-2247

FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE E. BURDICK; MARY K. BURDICK,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

BEN N. WILLIAMSON, III, Trustee; FARM CREDIT BANK OF COLUMBIA, Lienholder,

Defendants. No. 98-2248

FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE E. BURDICK; MARY K. BURDICK,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

JOHN TANTUM, Trustee: Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation of America, Lienholder,

Defendant.

No. 98-2249

FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE E. BURDICK, MARY K. BURDICK,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

2 BEN N. WILLIAMSON, III, Trustee: Farm Credit Bank of Columbia, Lienholder; JOHN TANTUM, Trustee: Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation of America, Lienholder,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-481-5-BR-3, CA-97-482-5-BR-3, CA-97-483-5-BR-3, CA-97-484-5-BR-3)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Burdick, Mary K. Burdick, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Hume McFarlane, Louisburg, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

3 PER CURIAM:

In these four consolidated appeals, George and Mary Burdick

appeal district court orders denying their motions for reconsid-

eration and motions to amend their motions for reconsideration of

four underlying orders remanding the four cases against them back

to state court. Because the district court in this case remanded

the cases on grounds expressly provided for in

(c)

(1994), lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we are precluded from

reviewing the remand orders, see

(d) (1994), and

consequently orders denying motions for reconsideration of remand

orders. We note that

(c) also authorizes the dis-

trict court to require a party to pay just costs and actual

expenses, including attorney’s fees.

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss these four appeals for

lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court, and oral argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

4