Case Name: CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; Consol Energy, Incorporated, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Herman H. Williams, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-17
Citations: 606 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 13-2508
Parties: CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; Consol Energy, Incorporated, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Herman H. Williams, Respondents.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; Consol Energy, Incorporated, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Herman H. Williams, Respondents.
No. 13-2508.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2014.
Decided: June 17, 2015.
George E. Roeder, III, Kathy L. Snyder, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioners. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stear-man, Jonathan Peter Rolfe, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, Wolfe, Williams, Rutherford & Reynolds, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Consolidation Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's award of black lung benefits to former miner Herman H. Williams, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 901-945 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the ALJ's decision is based upon substantial evidence and that the Board's decision is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.