Case Name: Lindell WILSON, Employee/Appellant, v. AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-06-12
Citations: 367 S.W.3d 680
Docket Number: No. ED 97402
Parties: Lindell WILSON, Employee/Appellant, v. AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 367
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
Lindell WILSON, Employee/Appellant, v. AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 97402.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 12, 2012.
John J. Ammann, St. Louis, MO, For Employee/Appellant.
AE Outfitters Retail Co. c/o UC Express, Acting pro se, St. Louis, MO, For Employer/Respondent.
Jeannie Desir Mitchell, Jefferson City, MO, For Respondent/Respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Lindell Wilson appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) denying him unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the Commission's decision is supported by sufficient competent and substantial evidence. Berwin v. Lindenwood Female College, 205 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).