Case Name: Arthur D. WALKER, Petitioner, v. NEW DELAWARE FUEL CORPORATION; West Virginia Coal-Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 133 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 05-1210
Parties: Arthur D. WALKER, Petitioner, v. NEW DELAWARE FUEL CORPORATION; West Virginia Coal-Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 893–893

Head Matter:
Arthur D. WALKER, Petitioner, v. NEW DELAWARE FUEL CORPORATION; West Virginia Coal-Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 05-1210.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2005.
Decided: June 14, 2005.
Arthur D. Walker, Petitioner pro se.
Robert Weinberger, State of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, Christian P. Barber, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arthur D. Walker seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Walker v. New Delaware Fuel Corp., No. 04-342-BLA (BRB Jan. 7, 2005). 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