UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-7060 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-340-A) Submitted: December 29, 1999 Decided: April 17, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court's denial. See United States v. Fiorani, No. CR-98-340-A (E.D. Va. July 14, 1999). After this Court appointed Fiorani counsel for representation on direct appeal, Fiorani moved to dismiss his appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Over two months after this Court granted Fiorani's motion, he filed a pro se motion to reopen his appeal. This Court dis- missed Fiorani's pro se motion to reopen the appeal without prejudice to his refiling the motion by counsel. Rather than refiling his motion by counsel appointed for him, Fiorani moved in the district court for the appointment of counsel to assist him in his direct appeal. He now appeals the district court's denial of that motion. We note that subse- quent to the district court's denial, Fiorani filed in this Court a motion to relieve his court-appointed attorney and to allow substitution of counsel. We denied the motion. Because this Court has already appointed counsel for representa- tion on direct appeal and instructed Fiorani that substitution will not be permitted, we affirm the district court's denial of Fiorani's motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2