In re: Green, 934 F.2d 568, 570 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the parties’ opening briefs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2324
LLOYD A. BJORLO; SHARON J. BJORLO,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
ZENOVIA QUALLIOTINE, Individually and as
Trustee under a certain revocable trust,
unrecorded and identified as “The Zenovia J.
Qualliotine Revocable Trust”,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-03-567-2)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Hartnett, AYRES & HARTNETT, Accomac, Virginia, for
Appellants. Robert W. McFarland, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Norfolk,
Virginia, Robert L. Hodges, Amy M. Pocklington, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Lloyd A. Bjorlo and Sharon J. Bjorlo appeal
the district court’s judgment denying their claims for specific
performance and damages. After a bench trial, this court reviews
the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of
facts for clear error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem.
& Solvent Co., 184 F.3d 373, 380 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(a). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, “although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); In re Green, 934 F.2d 568, 570 (4th
Cir. 1991).
We have reviewed the parties’ opening briefs, Appellants’
reply brief, and the joint appendix and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Bjorlo v. Qualliotine, No. CA-03-567-2 (E.D. Va.
Sept. 28, 2004). 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

-- 2 of 2 --