¶1 Stephen E. Bishop appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion for a hearing and granting the government’s motion to set aside a satisfaction of judgment that was allegedly entered by mistake. Bishop contends that the district court should have held a hearing and allowed him to present evidence as to the scope of the agreement. He also contends that the court erred in determining that the agreement settled some, rather than all, of the government’s claims against him. Having previously granted Bishop’s uncontested motion to submit on briefs, we have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinions and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bishop, No. CA-96-2057-5 (S.D.W.Va. July 9,1999 & Mar. 3, 2000).
¶2 AFFIRMED.