UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1143
ADOL T. OWEN-WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
94-1287-PJM)
Submitted: September 9, 1997 Decided: October 28, 1997
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Pontone,
James Petty Garland, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying as moot
his motions to supplement the record and for reconsideration of the
district court's December 8, 1995 order denying his motion to
modify or vacate an arbitration award and dismissing his complaint.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
find no reversible error. While we agree with the district court
that the motion to supplement the record is moot, we note that the
motion for reconsideration was not rendered moot by this court's
decision in the appeal. See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Correc-
tions, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). However, we affirm this por-
tion of the order on the merits, finding that Appellant failed to
show fraud or bias by clear and convincing evidence. See McMahan v.
International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron
Workers, 964 F.2d 1462, 1467 (4th Cir. 1992) (appellate court may
"affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on the record, notwith-
standing that the reason was not addressed below"). We deny Appel-
lant's motion to supplement the record. 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
2