basis for jurisdiction in the district court. See Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir.1989). In considering whether the court properly exercised jurisdiction over Aboud, we review relevant findings of fact for clear error, while we review de novo its legal determinations. See ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 710 (4th Cir.2002), petition for cert. filed, 71 U.S.L.W. 3247 (U.S. Sept. 12, 2002) (No. 02-463). B. In general, the federal district courts exercise personal jurisdiction in the manner and to the extent provided by state law. Id. In other words, a district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the state courts where the federal court is located would possess such jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(l)(A); Combs, 886 F.2d at 675 (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court possessed
recognizing that personal jurisdiction of federal courts of course may be grounded in state longarm or other jurisdiction statutes in civil rico cases holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive