UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2246 FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE E. BURDICK; MARY K. BURDICK, Defendants - Appellants. No. 98-2247 FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE E. BURDICK; MARY K. BURDICK, Defendants - Appellants, and BEN N. WILLIAMSON, III, Trustee; FARM CREDIT BANK OF COLUMBIA, Lienholder, Defendants.  No. 98-2248 FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE E. BURDICK; MARY K. BURDICK, Defendants - Appellants, and JOHN TANTUM, Trustee: Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation of America, Lienholder, Defendant. No. 98-2249 FRANKLIN COUNTY, a North Carolina Body Politic, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE E. BURDICK, MARY K. BURDICK, Defendants - Appellants, and 2 BEN N. WILLIAMSON, III, Trustee: Farm Credit Bank of Columbia, Lienholder; JOHN TANTUM, Trustee: Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation of America, Lienholder, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-481-5-BR-3, CA-97-482-5-BR-3, CA-97-483-5-BR-3, CA-97-484-5-BR-3) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Burdick, Mary K. Burdick, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Hume McFarlane, Louisburg, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 3 PER CURIAM: In these four consolidated appeals, George and Mary Burdick appeal district court orders denying their motions for reconsid- eration and motions to amend their motions for reconsideration of four underlying orders remanding the four cases against them back to state court. Because the district court in this case remanded the cases on grounds expressly provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1994), lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we are precluded from reviewing the remand orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1994), and consequently orders denying motions for reconsideration of remand orders. We note that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) also authorizes the dis- trict court to require a party to pay just costs and actual expenses, including attorney’s fees. In light of the foregoing, we dismiss these four appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4