
    Sharon R. CONNELLY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. BLOT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-1997
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 31, 2018
    Decided: February 20, 2018
    
      Glenn H. Silver, Erik B. Lawson, SILVER & BROWN, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy B. Hyland, David B. Deitch, Tyler Southwick, HARRIS, ST. LAURENT & CHAUDHRY LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal regarding Appellee Sharon R. Connelly’s breach of contract action under Virginia law, we are called on to determine whether the Defendant, Michael J. Blot, orally agreed to modification of a promissory note, the applicable burden of proof to establish that the note was modified, whether the Virginia Statute of Frauds required a modification of the note to be in writing, the applicable statute of limitations, and whether Blot is equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations defense.

The district court held a bench trial and in its memorandum of decision addressed each of the issues asserted on appeal, with one exception: the applicable burden of proof in demonstrating that there was mutual assent to the modification of the contract. When reviewing a judgment resulting from a bench trial, we examine conclusions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error. Tatum v. RJR Pension Inv. Comm., 761 F.3d 346, 357 (4th Cir. 2014). The court set down detailed reasoning in its memorandum of de-cisión. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the memorandum of decision and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasons stated by the district court. Connelly v. Blot, No. 1:16-cv-01282-AJT-JFA, 2017 WL 6766825 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2017).

We dispensé with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 
      
      
         We further conclude that the court did not err in using a preponderance of the evidence standard. See RF & P Corp. v. Little, 247 Va. 309, 440 S.E.2d 908, 914 (1994).
     