Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ... may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board from any action which is appealable to the Board under any law, rule, or regulation.” This makes a petitioner’s status as an “employee” a prerequisite to having a right of appeal and to Board jurisdiction. Specifically, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7513, for purposes of appealing a removal action, a petitioner must be included in one of several possible categories in order to meet the definition of “employee.” As a preference eligible individual in the excepted service who had completed less than one year of current continuous service, Vernon is not covered by any of the categories in § 7511(a)(1). Vernon is, thus, not an “employee” under § 7511 and he has no right to appeal. See Horner v. Lucas, 832 F.2d 596 (Fed.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The Board correctly concluded that it had no 
 Holding statements: (A) holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date (B) holding that an appellant was not entitled to incorporate district court filings into his appellate brief by reference and that his pro se status did not except him from such established rules (C) holding that as an individual with a probationary position in the competitive service the petitioner was not an employee and therefore the board had no jurisdiction at all over her appeal (D) holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the protections of 5 usc  7511a1 and 7513 because under  7511a1a the temporary status of his position in the competitive service prevented him from qualifying as an employee (E) holding that the petitioner in that case could not invoke the protections provided by miranda  including the right to counsel because he was not in custody at the time he stated t think i need a lawyer 
Output (English): holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date