NCNB Financial v. Shumate ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NCNB FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
ROY V. CREASY, Trustee,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 95-2048
JOSEPH B. SHUMATE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
COLEMAN FURNITURE CORPORATION
PENSION PLAN; JOHN R. PATTERSON,
Trustee,
Defendants.
In Re: JOSEPH B. SHUMATE, JR.,
Appellant,
and
ROY V. CREASY, Trustee,
Plaintiff,
No. 95-2824
v.
COLEMAN FURNITURE CORPORATION
PENSION PLAN; JOHN R. PATTERSON,
Trustee,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CA-83-279-R, CA-86-272-R, CA-86-432-R, CA-86-433-R)
Submitted: March 21, 1996
Decided: April 3, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER,* Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Joseph B. Shumate, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen McQuiston
Hodges, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Joseph B. Shumate, Jr., appeals from the district court's orders (1)
denying his motion to stay NCNB's garnishment summons and writ
_________________________________________________________________
*Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case.
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 46(d).
2
of execution (No. 95-2048) and (2) denying his motion for return of
$3,123.04, which was deducted for administrative expenses, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(b) (West 1994), from his funds held in the dis-
trict court's registry (No. 95-2824).
This court has already determined that the pension funds at issue
in this appeal are not entitled to protection under the anti-alienation
provisions afforded by ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1) (1988)), after
an actual distribution. Nationsbank v. Shumate , No. 93-2092 (4th Cir.
Dec. 29, 1994) (unpublished). Accordingly, Shumate's claims are
barred by res judicata. Further, the district court properly determined
that the administrative expenses which Shumate seeks to have
returned to him were lawfully deducted. Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3