
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Virgil W. WOMACK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-7006, 03-7433.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 30, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 3, 2004.
    
      Virgil W. Womack, Appellant pro se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    No. 03-7006, remanded and No. 03-7433, affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

In appeal number 03-7006, Virgil Womack seeks to appeal the district court’s adverse rulings relative to an evidentiary hearing held on June 11, 2003. In his informal brief, however, Womack challenges only the district court’s rulings on his motions for return of property, for a government accounting, and for appointment of counsel, and thus waives review of any other ruling. See Local Rule 34(b). Because the hearing transcript does not clearly reflect the district court’s ruling relative to the Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 motion, and because there exist discrepancies between the hearing transcript and the district court’s docket sheet reflecting the district court’s rulings on these motions, we remand the case to the district court for the court to enter a written order reflecting its disposition of the issues considered during the June 11, 2003, evidentiary hearing. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We deny Womack’s motion filed in this court to strike civil action number CV-00-236 from this appeal.

In appeal number 03-7433, Womack appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for correction or modification of the record pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 10(e)(1). Finding no showing of intentional misrepresentation or plain unreasonableness, we affirm the district court’s order denying Womack’s Rule 10(e)(1) motion. United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 93 (2d Cir.2000).

Womack has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Because this case presents neither complex issues nor exceptional circumstances, Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir.1984), we deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

No. 03-7006 — REMANDED

No. 03-7433 — AFFIRMED  