
    Isidoro RODRIGUEZ, Esq., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack HARBESTON; Sea Search Armada; Armada Company; Iota Partners; Danilo Devis Pereira, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-1884.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 9, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 28, 2001.
    Isidoro Rodriguez, pro se. R. Harrison Pledger, Jr., Bernard G. Feord, Jr., Pledger & Feord, P.L.C., McLean, VA, for ap-pellees.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Isidoro Rodriguez appeals the district court orders dismissing his complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions concerning personal jurisdiction. To the extent that the district court’s conclusions are based on findings of fact, however, such findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1993). Rodriguez bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction existed. In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir.1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s findings and legal conclusions and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rodriguez v. Harbeston, No. CA-00-1523-A (E.D.Va. Dec. 21, 2000 & June 5, 2001). We deny Rodriguez’s motion seeking certification of a question from the Supreme Court of Virginia. 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.  