Case Name: CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Sharon L. FLEMING, Widow of Paul Fleming; 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: 2017-02-10
Citations: 676 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 16-1465
Parties: CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Sharon L. FLEMING, Widow of Paul Fleming; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 676
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Sharon L. FLEMING, Widow of Paul Fleming; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 16-1465
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 24, 2017
Decided: February 10, 2017
Timothy W. Gresham, Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Wolfe Williams & Reynolds, Norton, Virginia; Sean Gregory Bajkowski, Sarah Marie Hurley, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clinchfield Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's award of benefits to Sharon Fleming, the surviving spouse of deceased coal miner Paul Fleming, under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 901-944 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without revers ible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Clinchfíeld Coal Co. v. Fleming, No. 16-0201 BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 26, 2016). We dispense 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.
PETITION DENIED