Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2011

Tamorah Chapman v. Virginia Employment Commission and Department of Treasury

Tamorah Chapman v. Virginia Employment Commission and Department of Treasury
Court of Appeals of Virginia · Decided June 21, 2011

Tamorah Chapman v. Virginia Employment Commission and Department of Treasury

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements

TAMORAH CHAPMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2419-10-4 PER CURIAM JUNE 21, 2011 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Jonathan C. Thacher, Judge (Tamorah Chapman, pro se, on brief).

(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Elizabeth B. Peay, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee Virginia Employment Commission.

Tamorah Chapman appeals a decision of the circuit court affirming a decision by the Virginia Employment Commission (the Commission) denying her unemployment benefits due to misconduct connected with work. We have reviewed the record, the circuit court’s order, and the Commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 1 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Commission in its final opinion, see In the matter of: Chapman v. Department of the Treasury, Commission Decision No. 90709-C (June 30, 2010), as affirmed by the circuit court, see Chapman v. Virginia Emp’t Comm’n, Case No. CL-2010-0010194 (Oct. 15, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

In rendering this decision, we do not consider the fourth, sixth, and eleventh assignments of error. Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of the fourth and sixth assignments of error because Chapman did not raise these issues before the circuit court. Although Chapman listed the eleventh assignment of error in her opening brief, she does not include any argument on this issue, as required by Rule 5A:20. contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

-2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.