DocketNumber： 97-1143
Filed Date： 10/28/1997
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/30/2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1143 ADOL T. OWEN-WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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