RAW COAL MINING COMPANY, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, 13-2060. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140205071
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed February 4, 2014, as follows: On the cover sheet, agency information section, "Order of the National Labor Relations Board" is corrected to read "Order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission." Unpublished Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Raw Coal Mining Company seeks review of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission's ("Commission") order denying its motion, under Federal Rule
Summary: ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed February 4, 2014, as follows: On the cover sheet, agency information section, "Order of the National Labor Relations Board" is corrected to read "Order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission." Unpublished Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Raw Coal Mining Company seeks review of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission's ("Commission") order denying its motion, under Federal Rule ..
More
ORDER
The Court amends its opinion filed February 4, 2014, as follows:
On the cover sheet, agency information section, "Order of the National Labor Relations Board" is corrected to read "Order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission."
Unpublished
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Raw Coal Mining Company seeks review of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission's ("Commission") order denying its motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), to reopen the civil penalty assessment proceedings. Our review of the record reveals that Raw Coal failed to urge before the Commission the objection it now makes to this court, and it has not presented extraordinary circumstances excusing that failure. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 816(a)(1), 823(d)(2)(A)(iii) (2012) 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.
Source: Leagle
