UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6665 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AUGUSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; AUGUSTA GENERAL DISTRICT COURT; AUGUSTA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEYS OFFICE; VIR- GINIA STATE POLICE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-6672 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Defendants - Appellees.  No. 96-6673 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Respondent - Appellee. No. 96-6685 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus A. LEE ERVIN, Respondent - Appellee. No. 96-6743 JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus 2 BILL CLINTON, President; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Samuel G. Wilson, District Judges. (CA-95-946-R, CA-95-1020-R, CA-95-1021-R, CA-95- 1026-R, CA-95-1114-R) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Nos. 96-6665, 96-6672, and 96-6743 affirmed and Nos. 96-6673 and 96-6685 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying Appellant's motions to reopen previous district court decisions and denying Appellant's motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, in Nos. 96-6665, 96-6672, and 96-6743, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Augusta County Sheriff's Dep't, No. CA-95-946-R; Turner v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-95-1020-R; Turner v. Clinton, No. CA-95- 1114-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 12 and 17, 1996, and May 7, 1996). In Nos. 96-6673 and 96-6685, we deny certificates of probable cause to appeal, to the extent that certificates of appealability are re- quired, we deny such certificates, and we dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Kuykendall, No. CA-95-1021-R; Turner v. Ervin, No. CA-95-1026-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 10 and 17, 1996). 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. The motions for hearing in banc are denied. Nos. 96-6665, 96-6672, and 96-6743 - AFFIRMED Nos. 96-6673 and 96-6685 - DISMISSED 4