OPINION

Barbara Michelle Bush seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her civil actions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bush v. Damron, No. CA-02-1999-DKC (D. Md. June 24, 2002); Bush v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, No. CA-02-2291 (D. Md. filed July 26, 2002 & entered July 29, 2002); Bush v. Temple, No. CA-02-2506-CCB (D.Md. Sept. 10, 2002). In addition, we have reviewed Bush’s response to our order to show cause as to why she should not be sane- *594 tioned for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing further actions in this court unless she pays the sanctions and a district court finds that the action is not frivolous. We find her response fails to show cause why sanctions and an injunction should not be imposed. Therefore, having filed numerous frivolous appeals in this court from district court orders dismissing her civil complaints as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, Bush is sanctioned $500 for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing further actions in this court unless she pays the sanction and a district court finds that the appeal is not frivolous. We deny Bush’s motions to voluntarily dismiss her appeals, for sanctions, for a declaratory judgment, and for appointment of counsel, and 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.