UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2798 In Re: EDWARD R. BUTLER, Debtor. _________________________ EDWARD R. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT B. SCARLETT, Defendant - Appellee. No. 95-2808 In Re: EDWARD R. BUTLER, Debtor. _________________________ EDWARD R. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT B. SCARLETT, Defendant - Appellee, TERRY L. MUSIKA, U. S. Trustee, Trustee - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-2192-H, CA-95-2217-H, BK-90-3087-5-JS) Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward R. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Howard Meredith, ILIF & MEREDITH, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland; Terry L. Musika, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his appeals from the bankruptcy court's orders and denying his motions for reconsideration. Appellant moved for a stay of all action on these appeals pending the outcome of an unrelated adversary proceeding. Because any decision in that case will not affect these appeals, we deny Appellant's motions for a stay. Ap- pellee Scarlett moved to dismiss these appeals as untimely; how- ever, Appellant timely noted his appeals from the district court's orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Therefore, we deny Appellee Scarlett's motions to dismiss the appeals. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Butler v. Scarlett, Nos. CA-95-2192-H; CA-95-2217-H (D. Md. Aug. 17, 1995; Sept. 18 & 19, 1995). 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 3