NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARY A. FREEMAN,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________

2023-2000

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0831-17-0566-I-1.

______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s August 2, 2023, show cause 

order, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) urges 

dismissal of the appeal as untimely. Mary A. Freeman 

urges that the court not dismiss and states that she 

“need[s] legal representation on this.” ECF No. 14 at 1.

In its final decision issued April 3, 2023, the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed OPM’s decision that Ms. 

Freeman was ineligible for a deferred retirement annuity. 

Case: 23-2000 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2023
2 FREEMAN v. OPM

Ms. Freeman’s petition for review was stamped as received 

by this court 63 days later, on June 5, 2023. 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), “a petition to review a 

final order or final decision of the Board . . . shall be filed 

within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” This court’s precedent makes 

clear that “filing requires actual receipt by the court, not 

just timely mailing,” and that this timeliness requirement 

is jurisdictional, which “precludes equitable exceptions.” 

Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017); see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). 

Ms. Freeman’s response includes a petition for review

form, which she contends “was completed and received on 

June 2nd, 2023.” ECF No. 14 at 1. The attached form, however, bears no indication that it was received on any particular date, let alone June 2, 2023. The record instead 

reflects that Ms. Freeman’s petition was accepted for mailing by the United States Postal Service mid-afternoon on 

June 2, 2023, in Georgia, for delivery the next day (a Saturday), ECF No. 1-2 at 16, and that the court received her 

petition only on June 5, 2023, ECF No. 1-2 at 1 (stamped 

received “JUN 05 2023”). Since Ms. Freeman’s petition 

was not filed within the 60-day statutory deadline, we lack 

jurisdiction.* Because we clearly lack jurisdiction under 

the circumstances, we conclude that appointment of counsel here is not appropriate. 

 

* Ms. Freeman’s filings suggest that she raised a discrimination claim before the Board, but as OPM correctly 

noted, nothing in the record suggests that Ms. Freeman alleged at the Board that OPM’s underlying decision was 

based on discrimination, and therefore Ms. Freeman has 

not shown this is a case of discrimination under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7702 that might be subject to transfer to district court. 

Case: 23-2000 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2023
FREEMAN v. OPM 3

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(2) Any pending motions are denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

October 30, 2023 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-2000 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 10/30/2023