Todd M. Jack v. Virginia Employment Commission ( 2013 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner
UNPUBLISHED
TODD M. JACK
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 1366-13-4 PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 5, 2013
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY
Clifford L. Athey, Jr., Judge
(Todd M. Jack, pro se, on brief).
No brief for appellee.
Todd M. Jack appeals from a May 8, 2013 final order of the circuit court dismissing
Jack’s petition for judicial review of the Virginia Employment Commission’s (VEC’s) findings
that fifty-two weeks had not passed since he was disqualified for benefits pursuant to Code
§ 60.2-618(4) and that he had not repaid benefits fraudulently obtained as required for benefits
eligibility.1 The VEC filed a motion to dismiss Jack’s appeal to this Court for Jack’s failure to
comply with numerous rules of this Court, and a motion for summary disposition pursuant to
Rule 5A:27. Jack filed a response to that motion.
We have reviewed the record, the opinions of the VEC deputy commissioner, the VEC
appeals examiner, and the VEC, and the circuit court’s May 8, 2013 final order, and find that this
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
On September 3, 2013, this Court summarily affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court
of the City of Winchester to dismiss Jack’s petition for review of the VEC’s findings that he was
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits and that he was liable to repay the VEC for
unemployment compensation benefits he fraudulently obtained. See Jack v. Virginia Emp’t
Comm’n, Record No. 1021-13-4 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2013).
appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the VEC’s opinion, as
affirmed by the circuit court in its final order dismissing Jack’s petition for judicial review of the
VEC’s decision. See In the matter of Jack, Comm’n Decision 107750-C (Feb. 15, 2013), aff’d,
Jack v. Virginia Emp’t Comm’n, Case No. 13-206 (May 8, 2013). We summarily affirm because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court. See
Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-2-