Case Name: In re Ronald Wayne WALKER, Sr; Lisa Ann Walker; Janet M. Nesse, Debtors, v. Elizabeth Anne Reeves, Counsel for Debtors, Debtor-Appellant, v. United States Trustee, Trustee-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-26
Citations: 489 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 12-1900
Parties: In re Ronald Wayne WALKER, Sr; Lisa Ann Walker; Janet M. Nesse, Debtors, v. Elizabeth Anne Reeves, Counsel for Debtors, Debtor-Appellant, v. United States Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 485
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
In re Ronald Wayne WALKER, Sr; Lisa Ann Walker; Janet M. Nesse, Debtors, v. Elizabeth Anne Reeves, Counsel for Debtors, Debtor-Appellant, v. United States Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.
No. 12-1900.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2012.
Elizabeth Anne Reeves, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Schneider, Jr., United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Gerard Richard Vetter, Office of the United States Trustee, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Anne Reeves appeals the district court's orders: (1) dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court's order for failure to comply with Bankr.R. 8009; and (2) denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Reeves v. United States Trustee, Nos. 8:12-cv-00918-AW; 11-19737; 11-20840; 11-26340; 12-11149 (D. Md. June 6, 2012; June 29, 2012). 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.