CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KARST ROBBINS COAL COMPANY; BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MARLIN D. RICE,
Respondents.
   No. 19-3836
On Petition for Review from the Benefits Review Board;
No. 17-0625 BLA.
Argued: July 29, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 7, 2020
Before:MOORE, CLAY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Bituminous Casualty Corp., as the insurer for Karst Robbins Coal Co. (“KRCC”), seeks review of a decision by the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board finding Bituminous responsible for paying a claim under the Black Lung Benefits Act (“BLBA”), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901–45. Bituminous argues that the Department was collaterally estopped from finding that KRCC was the responsible operator under the Act, because an administrative law judge had previously found that another, related company was actually the claimant’s employer. Bituminous also argues that it was entitled to rescind its insurance agreement based on alleged fraud by KRCC, and that delays in the Department’s administrative proceedings violated its right to due process. For the reasons that follow, Bituminous is incorrect on each of these counts, and so we deny its petition for review.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SHEILA ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHIGAN BUREAU OF SERVICES FOR BLIND PERSONS; EDWARD ROGERS, II; TAMELA MEEK; JAMES HULL; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; JOHN KING, JR., Secretary of Education,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-2179
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
Nos. 1:16-cv-00345; 1:16-cv-01169—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: July 29, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 7, 2020
Before: SUTTON, COOK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. The Randolph-Sheppard Act, found at 20 U.S.C. §§ 107 to 107f, requires government agencies to set aside certain contracts for sight-challenged vendors. Although the law applies primarily to federal agencies, States take the lead in licensing the vendors and matching them with available contracts. In 2010, the State of Michigan denied Sheila Armstrong’s bid for a contract to stock vending machines at highway rest stops in the State. Convinced that the denial stemmed from a record-keeping error, Armstrong complained. After pursuing relief in state administrative proceedings, federal arbitration, and most recently the district court, she remains dissatisfied with the results.

Her appeal prompts two questions: Was the unfavorable arbitration decision arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act? And may Armstrong sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate her rights under the Randolph-Sheppard Act? Because the answer to both questions is no, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ALAIN CUEVAS-NUNO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 20-3034
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;
No. A 205 298 571.
Decided and Filed: August 7, 2020
Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that parties must exhaust their claims with the Board of Immigration Appeals before we can review them. This gives the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security “a full opportunity to consider a petitioner’s claims, [and] avoid[s] premature interference with the agenc[ies’] processes[.]” Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Alain Cuevas-Nuno failed to administratively exhaust each of the claims he brings before us. So we DISMISS his petition for lack of jurisdiction.