OF JUDGMENT: 04/29/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. ANDREW K. HOWORTH TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SHANESE MOSLEY (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ALBERT B. WHITE ANNA CRAIN CLEMMER
Shanese Mosley appeals the judgment of the Marshall County
Circuit Court, arguing that the court erred in affirming the
Mississippi Department of Employment Security's (MDES)
denial of her claim for unemployment benefits.
Finding no error, we affirm.
In April 2014, Mosley applied for unemployment-insurance
benefits. The MDES denied her claim after determining that
she had failed to meet the monetary-eligibility requirements.
Specifically, MDES determined that Mosley had earned
insufficient base-period wages, such that her weekly benefit
amount computed to an amount below the minimum weekly benefit
amount required under Mississippi Code Annotated section
71-5-503 (Rev. 2011). Mosley appealed the initial decision of
the MDES and was granted a hearing before an administrative
law judge (AJ), who affirmed the decision of the MDES.
Undeterred, Mosley then appealed to the Board of Review of
the MDES, which affirmed, and then to the circuit court,
which also affirmed the decision of the MDES. Mosley then
appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
While Mosley's appeal was pending before the supreme
court, MDES filed a motion in the supreme court, seeking a
remand of the case to the MDES, so it could consider income
earned by Mosley in the State of Tennessee, which had not
been considered by the MDES in its initial decision. The
supreme court granted the motion, vacated the judgment of the
circuit court that had affirmed the decision of the MDES, and
remanded the case to the MDES for further proceedings.
After remand, the MDES took in consideration the income
earned by Mosley in Tennessee and again ruled that she had
earned insufficient base-period wages to establish a claim
for unemployment benefits. Mosley again appealed the
MDES's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed,
leading to the current appeal.
Our standard of review is succinctly addressed in
Richardson v. MississippiEmployment Security