by the State Police are accurate and need not be corrected. Citing Feigley v. Department of Corrections, 731 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), Dunbar contends that he has a due process right to an appeal hearing and that under Section 9151(b) of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9151(b), he has the right to have a proper party present at the hearing to defend its interests. Dunbar claims that he was denied due process because DOC, as the agency authorized to enforce and to interpret sentencing orders, was not a party to the proceedings. He asserts that the State Police is not the proper party to defend against the challenge because it is responsible, inter alia, for collecting fingerprint cards and maintaining criminal arrest histories. See Wagaman v. Attorney General, 872 A.2d 244 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (<HOLDING>). The State Police points out that pursuant to
holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action holding that a proper party must have responsibility to administer or to enforce the law recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that congress may not direct a state to enact or enforce a particular law or type of law recognizing that prevailing party has remedies available at common law to enforce arbitrators award