Case Name: Isidoro RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HFP INCORPORATED, General Partner; Iota Partners; Edris E. Harbeston; Jack Harbeston; Jerome Barron, Defendants-Appellees, and Armada Company, General Partner; Sea Search Armada; Doe Entities 1-6; Murdock & Company; Dave Larocque; Don Middlebrook; Ed Carpenter; Danilo Devis Pereira; John Does, 1-10, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-10
Citations: 77 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 03-1084
Parties: Isidoro RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HFP INCORPORATED, General Partner; Iota Partners; Edris E. Harbeston; Jack Harbeston; Jerome Barron, Defendants-Appellees, and Armada Company, General Partner; Sea Search Armada; Doe Entities 1-6; Murdock & Company; Dave Larocque; Don Middlebrook; Ed Carpenter; Danilo Devis Pereira; John Does, 1-10, Defendants.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 77
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Isidoro RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HFP INCORPORATED, General Partner; Iota Partners; Edris E. Harbeston; Jack Harbeston; Jerome Barron, Defendants-Appellees, and Armada Company, General Partner; Sea Search Armada; Doe Entities 1-6; Murdock & Company; Dave Larocque; Don Middlebrook; Ed Carpenter; Danilo Devis Pereira; John Does, 1-10, Defendants.
No. 03-1084.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
Decided Oct. 10, 2003.
Isidoro Rodriguez, Law Offices of Rodriguez & Sibley, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. R. Harrison Pledger, Jr., Pledger & Feord, P.L.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Isidoro Rodriguez appeals the district court order dismissing his complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions concerning personal jurisdiction. To the extent that the district court's conclusions are based on findings of fact, however, such findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Mylan Lab., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1993). Rodriguez bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction existed. In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's findings and legal conclusions and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.