Owen-Williams v. Merrill Lynch ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-1143
    ADOL T. OWEN-WILLIAMS, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MERRILL LYNCH,     PIERCE,   FENNER   AND   SMITH,
    INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
    94-1287-PJM)
    Submitted:   September 9, 1997              Decided:   October 28, 1997
    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Pontone,
    James Petty Garland, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying as moot
    his motions to supplement the record and for reconsideration of the
    district court's December 8, 1995 order denying his motion to
    modify or vacate an arbitration award and dismissing his complaint.
    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
    find no reversible error. While we agree with the district court
    that the motion to supplement the record is moot, we note that the
    motion for reconsideration was not rendered moot by this court's
    decision in the appeal. See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Correc-
    tions, 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 263 n.7 (1978). However, we affirm this por-
    tion of the order on the merits, finding that Appellant failed to
    show fraud or bias by clear and convincing evidence. See McMahan v.
    International   Ass'n   of   Bridge,   Structural   &   Ornamental   Iron
    Workers, 
    964 F.2d 1462
    , 1467 (4th Cir. 1992) (appellate court may
    "affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record, notwith-
    standing that the reason was not addressed below"). We deny Appel-
    lant's motion to supplement the record. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1143

Filed Date: 10/28/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014