UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

ROSEMARIE N. MENDOZA, No. 95-1327

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

Trust-Appellee.

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

EDNA P. LAGTAPON, LDS-40144, No. 95-1334

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

Trust-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-85-1307-R)

Submitted: June 18, 1996

Decided: July 11, 1996
Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and

CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Rosemarie N. Mendoza, Edna P. Lagtapon, Appellants Pro Se. Orran

Lee Brown, Sr., Melody Gunter Foster, DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Edna Lagtapon and Rosemarie Mendoza appeal the district court's order denying their respective motions

for reinstatement of their disallowed late Dalkon Shield claims.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Lagtapon and Mendoza live in the Philippines. Because of overwhelming evidence* that the majority of late claims from the Philip-

_________________________________________________________________

*Roughly two-thirds of all late claims received by the Dalkon Shield

Claimants Trust came from the Philippines. Although records revealed

that between 3000 and 5000 Dalkon Shields were distributed in the Philippines, the Trust received over 43,000 late claims from that country.

Documentation supporting the claims also suggested fraud. For instance,

a number of health care providers informed the Trust that "their" signatures on affidavits offered in support of many of the claims were forgeries.

 2
pines were fraudulent, the Trust disallowed the claims. The district

court entered an order setting forth the procedure for seeking reinstatement of a disallowed claim. The court advised claimants that, to

seek reinstatement, they had to file with the court: (1) a statement of

whether the claimant would attend a hearing on the motions to reinstate; (2) a list of exhibits offered in support of the motions for reinstatement; (3) a copy of each exhibit; and (4) a list of all persons who

might testify in support of the motion and a summary of their anticipated testimony. The court advised claimants who did not plan to

attend the hearing that any material provided in support of the motion

had to be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The order

warned that "affidavits, certificates, and letters are hearsay and generally not admissible."

Mendoza and Lagtapon filed timely motions for reinstatement.

Mendoza complied with none of the court's directives; rather, she

simply asked for reinstatement. In support of her motion and despite

the court's warnings about the inadmissible hearsay nature of affidavits, certificates, and the like, Lagtapon submitted her own affidavit,

as well as those of her husband and a family physician, Dr. Eduardo

Duran.

Her husband and Dr. Duran stated that Lagtapon was inserted with

the device in 1973 and had it removed in 1975. No contemporaneous

medical records documenting insertion or removal were submitted.

Nor did she explain her failure to provide such records. Dr. Duran

neither inserted nor removed the device, and he did not state the basis

for his knowledge of the dates of insertion and removal. No affidavit

was submitted by the physician who allegedly inserted the Dalkon

Shield.

The district court denied the motions to reinstate because: (1) the

Appellants did not comply with the procedural requirements of its

order; and (2) even if there were such compliance, neither Appellant

demonstrated that her claim was more likely genuine than fraudulent.

Mendoza and Lagtapon timely appealed.

We affirm the decision of the district court. Neither Mendoza nor

Lagtapon complied with the procedures for seeking reinstatement

which the district court clearly set out in its order. Mendoza offered

 3
nothing in support of her motion for reinstatement; the material Lagtapon submitted was not admissible under the Rules of Evidence. In

In re A. H. Robins Co., 862 F.2d 1092 (4th Cir. 1988), we upheld the

district court's disallowance of a claim for failure to comply with

clearly delineated procedural requirements for filing a claim. Id. at

1096-97. We are of opinion that failure to comply with plainly stated

procedures for seeking reinstatement of a disallowed claim, like failure to comply with procedures when filing a claim, was a proper

ground for denying reinstatement and permanently disallowing Mendoza's and Lagtapon's claims.

Further, the party moving for reinstatement of a disallowed claim

bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that

it is more likely than not that her claim is genuine. Neither Lagtapon

nor Mendoza provided the district court with evidence that would

enable her to meet this burden.

We accordingly affirm the district court's denial of the motions for

reinstatement. We dispense with oral argument because the materials

before us reveal that argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4