Filed: February 5, 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2060 (WEVA 2011-858; WEVA 2011-2051; WEVA 2011-409)

RAW COAL MINING COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

O R D E R

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.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2060

RAW COAL MINING COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. (WEVA 2011-858; WEVA 2011-2051; WEVA 2011-409)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melissa M. Robinson, Adam J. Schwendeman, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Heidi W. Strassler, Associate Solicitor, W. Christian Schumann, Appellate Litigation, David L. Edeli, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(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

2