041034A.U

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1034
PROD-X DISTRIBUTORS, INCORPORATED; NASIR M.
KHAN, a/k/a David Kahn,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CAPITOL RESOURCE FUNDING, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-1065-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2005 Decided: May 10, 2005
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and Glen E.
CONRAD, United States District Judge for the Western District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott M. Behren, Shawn L. Michaelson, WALDMAN, FELUREN, HILDEBRANDT
& TRIGOBOFF, PA, Weston, Florida, for Appellants. Stephen M.
Seeger, Julie Quagliano, QUAGLIANO & SEEGER, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs Prod-X Distributors, Inc. (“Prod-X”) and Nasir
M. Khan noted an appeal from the district court’s order dismissing
their breach of contract claim and entering judgment in favor of
Defendant Capitol Resource Funding, Inc., on its counterclaim for
breach of contract. While the appeal was pending, Prod-X filed a
petition for relief in bankruptcy. We therefore stayed the appeal
from the portion of the district court’s order granting judgment in
favor of Capitol Resource on its counterclaim against Prod-X, see
11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000), and affirmed the remainder of the case.
See Prod-X Distribs., Inc. v. Capitol Res. Funding, Inc., No. 04-
1034 (4th Cir. Oct. 20, 2004) (unpublished).
The bankruptcy court has now lifted the automatic stay
imposed in Prod-X’s bankruptcy case to allow this court to resolve
the appeal as to the judgment entered on Capitol Resource’s
counterclaim against Prod-X. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error by the district court in granting judgment in
favor of Capitol Resource and against Prod-X on Capitol Resource’s
counterclaim. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Prod-X Distribs., Inc. v. Capitol Res.
Funding, Inc., No. CA-03-1065-1 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 26, 2003 &
entered Dec. 4, 2003). We have previously granted Capitol
Resource’s motion to submit the case on the briefs and dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --