UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1709

STEPHEN A. ARMSTRONG,

Party in Interest - Appellant,

and

INTER-WORLD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; INTERNA- TIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, INCORPORATED; RICHARD L. BAST,

Plaintiffs,

versus

ANTONIA LEIGH PETTIT; BARBARA OZELLA REVES; WILLIAM G. BILLINGHAM; JOHN F. DAVIS; MARY AUDREY LARKIN; LOIS AMES; ANTHONY JOSEPH PETTIT,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

VICTOR MICHAEL GLASBERG; JEANNE GOLDBERG; COHEN, DUNN & SINCLAIR, PC; J. FREDERICK SINCLAIR; THOMAS J. CURCIO; CARTER & KRAMER, PC; CHARLES WARREN KRAMER; JACOBOVITZ, ENGLISH & SMITH, PC; DAVID BENJAMIN SMITH; CLAUDE DAVID CONVISSER; NANCY GERTNER; PATRICIA GRIEST; JODY L. NEWMAN; DELMAR D. HARTLEY; MADDONA LEA SCHAMP PETTIT; ANNE CONNELL; WILLIAM C. HILLMAN; ROGER A. COX,

Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-531-A)

Submitted: October 27, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gottlieb James Frick, II, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Frank Willard Dunham, Jr., COHEN, GETTINGS & DUNHAM, P.C., Arling- ton, Virginia; Barbara Ozella Reves, Alexandria, Virginia; John Otto Easton, JORDAN, COYNE & SAVITS, Fairfax, Virginia; Pamela Anne Bresnahan, Steven Robert Becker, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

Stephen Andrew Armstrong appeals the district court’s deci-

sions imposing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions and denying his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.* We have reviewed the

record, the district court’s opinions, and Armstrong’s claims on

appeal, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

orders on the reasoning of the district court. Armstrong v. Pettit,

No. CA-95-531-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1995; Mar. 24, 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

* Armstrong’s notice of appeal and informal brief state that he is taking appeal from the district court’s orders of August 4, October 6, October 10, October 25, November 17, December 5, 20, 1995, January 19, 1996, and March 24, 1998. This court has already determined that Armstrong’s prior appeal from the district court’s orders of August 4, October 10, October 11 (dated October 6), October 25, and November 20 (dated November 17), was untimely, and that his prior appeal from the district court’s orders of December 20, 1995, and January 19, 1996, was without merit. See Armstrong v. Goldberg, No. 96-1223 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 1997) (unpublished) and this court’s order entered February 20, 1998. We decline to reconsider our prior holdings relative to these orders.

3