Court Opinion

ID: 5123719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-05 16:00:49.018414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:35.638367
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
          For the Eighth Circuit
      ___________________________

              No. 20-3402
      ___________________________

               Jack R. T. Jordan

           lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                         v.

          U.S. Department of Labor

          lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

        Dyncorp International, L.L.C.

 lllllllllllllllllllllInterested party - Intervenor
        ___________________________

              No. 20-3404
      ___________________________

                Jack R. T. Jordan

           lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                         v.

          U.S. Department of Labor

          lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

        Dyncorp International, L.L.C.

 lllllllllllllllllllllInterested party - Intervenor
                      ____________
                       Petition for Review of an Order of the
                        Department of Labor (except OSHA)
                                    ____________

                           Submitted: November 2, 2021
                             Filed: November 5, 2021
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated cases, Jack Jordan petitions for review of final orders
from the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB).
After careful review, we conclude the ARB’s decisions were not arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in
the record. See 49 U.S.C. § 31105(d) (appellate court reviews ARB’s decision
pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (reviewing court shall
hold unlawful and set aside agency decision found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if unsupported by
substantial evidence in record). Accordingly, we deny Jordan’s petition in each case.
See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-