UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1001 IN RE: MINH VU HOANG, Debtor, ______________________ MINH VU HOANG, Defendant – Appellant, versus UHY ADVISORS FLYS, INC., Third Party Defendant – Appellee, and GARY A. ROSEN, Trustee. No. 12-1003 IN RE: MINH VU HOANG; THANH HOANG Debtors, __________________________________ MINH VU HOANG, Defendant – Appellant,  v. GARY A. ROSEN; ROGER SCHLOSSBERG, Trustees - Appellees. No. 12-1004 IN RE: MINH VU HOANG, Debtor, ______________________ MINH VU HOANG, Defendant – Appellant, versus MARION A. HECHT; JEFFREY K. BERNSTEIN; GOODMAN SOLUTIONS, LLC; GOODMAN & COMPANY, LLP, Third Party Defendants – Appellees, and ROGER SCHLOSSBERG; GARY A. ROSEN, Trustees. No. 12-1005 In re: MINH VU HOANG, Debtor, ______________________ MINH VU HOANG, Defendant – Appellant, 2  versus GARY A. ROSEN; TRUSTEE ROGER SCHLOSSBERG, Third Party Defendants – Appellees, and GARY A. ROSEN, Individually; GARY A. ROSEN, Chartered, Trustees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:11-cv-02641-DKC; 8:11-cv-02642-DKC; 8:11-cv-02653- DKC; 8:11-cv-02654; 05-21078; 11-00001) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Minh Vu Hoang, Appellant Pro Se. Alan M. Grochal, Catherine Keller Hopkin, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Gary A. Rosen, Rockville, Maryland; Roger Schlossberg, SCHLOSSBERG & ASSOCIATES, Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Minh Vu Hoang appeals the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders in the underlying proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoang v. UHY Advisors FKYS, Inc., Nos. 8:11-cv- 02641-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Rosen, Nos. 8:11-cv- 02642-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Hecht, Nos. 8:11-cv- 02653-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Gary Rosen, Nos. 8:11- cv-02654-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2011). We deny Hoang’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 4