James B. King, Director, Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner, v. Calvin D. Uhlig, Respondent,andmerit Systems Protection Board, Respondent, 92 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 92 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1996) July 2, 1996

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, NIES, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW

ARCHER, Chief Judge.


ORDER

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision in Uhlig v. Department of Justice. Calvin D. Uhlig submits an untimely opposition.1  The Board submits a response.

Briefly, OPM seeks review of the Board's decision holding that an agency may not separately charge a federal employee with providing false statements in response to agency inquiries if the agency also charges that the employee committed the conduct that was the subject of the inquiry. This issue is presently before the court in King v. Erickson, appeal nos. 95-3745, -3746, and its companion case, King v. McManus, appeal no. 96-3028.* 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(d), OPM may seek review of a Board decision when OPM determines, in its discretion, that the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule or regulation, and that the Board's decision will have a substantial impact on the administration of the civil service. This court must independently determine whether an exercise of our jurisdiction is warranted. Devine v. Sutermeister, 724 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

As we did in Erickson and McManus, we determine that review of the Board's final order is appropriate. However, because the cases now pending before the court involve the same issue, we stay the briefing in this case pending the court's decision in Erickson.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) OPM's petition for review is granted.

(2) This case is stayed pending the court's decision in King v. Erickson, appeal nos. 95-3745, -3746. OPM is directed to notify this court within 45 days of the court's decision in Erickson.

 1

In his opposition, Uhlig argues that the petition should be dismissed as moot because he recently retired. However, because the Board awarded back pay to Uhlig, the petition is not moot

 *

Oral argument was heard in these cases on May 3, 1996

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.