Case Name: NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, and Helen R. Byrd, Widow of James C. Byrd, Claimant, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-10
Citations: 86 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 01-2256
Parties: NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, and Helen R. Byrd, Widow of James C. Byrd, Claimant, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, and Helen R. Byrd, Widow of James C. Byrd, Claimant, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.
No. 01-2256.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2003.
Decided Feb. 10, 2004.
Jonathan H. Walker, Mason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Howard M. Radzely, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Mark S. Flynn, Acting Counsel for Longshore, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before TRAXLER and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of relief from liability for death benefit payments pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 908(f) (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 Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Dir. Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, No. 01-199 (BRB Sept. 26, 2001). 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