UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NCNB FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, and ROY V. CREASY, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. No. 95-2048 JOSEPH B. SHUMATE, JR., Defendant-Appellant, and COLEMAN FURNITURE CORPORATION PENSION PLAN; JOHN R. PATTERSON, Trustee, Defendants. In Re: JOSEPH B. SHUMATE, JR., Appellant, and ROY V. CREASY, Trustee, Plaintiff, No. 95-2824 v. COLEMAN FURNITURE CORPORATION PENSION PLAN; JOHN R. PATTERSON, Trustee, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-83-279-R, CA-86-272-R, CA-86-432-R, CA-86-433-R) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,* Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Joseph B. Shumate, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen McQuiston Hodges, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Joseph B. Shumate, Jr., appeals from the district court's orders (1) denying his motion to stay NCNB's garnishment summons and writ _________________________________________________________________ *Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 of execution (No. 95-2048) and (2) denying his motion for return of $3,123.04, which was deducted for administrative expenses, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(b) (West 1994), from his funds held in the dis- trict court's registry (No. 95-2824). This court has already determined that the pension funds at issue in this appeal are not entitled to protection under the anti-alienation provisions afforded by ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1) (1988)), after an actual distribution. Nationsbank v. Shumate , No. 93-2092 (4th Cir. Dec. 29, 1994) (unpublished). Accordingly, Shumate's claims are barred by res judicata. Further, the district court properly determined that the administrative expenses which Shumate seeks to have returned to him were lawfully deducted. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3