UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 23-7775

KAREN R. SHORETTE, PETITIONER,

V.

DENIS MCDONOUGH,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

Before BARTLEY, Chief Judge, and MEREDITH and LAURER, Judges.

O R D E R

Before the Court is Karen R. Shorette's petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a 

writ of mandamus. As explained below, this is her second petition related to her husband's, Charles 

R. Shorette's, VA disability compensation, which has been managed and distributed through VA's 

fiduciary program since 2008. 

I. BACKGROUND

The petitioner has served as the veteran's legal guardian pursuant to an Indiana state court 

order since February 2009 and had served as his VA fiduciary from December 2008 to March 

2018. As his VA fiduciary, she operated under an agreement that allocated in excess of $3,000 per 

month from the veteran's disability benefits to pay the family's expenses and provide for his 

dependents. However, in March 2018, VA suspended payment of the veteran's benefits after a 

psychologist at a VA medical center alleged that the petitioner had been misusing the veteran's 

funds. Although VA appointed a successor fiduciary for the veteran in November 2018, none of 

his benefits were allocated for his dependents and the family's expenses.

Nearly 3 years later, in March 2021, VA determined that it was wrong: the petitioner did 

not misuse the veteran's funds. Yet VA did nothing to restore her as fiduciary for her husband; VA 

ignored her appeal, as guardian of the veteran, of VA's appointment of a paid fiduciary and her 

concomitant removal as fiduciary; and despite repeated complaints, VA failed to ensure that VA's

paid fiduciary was acting in the best interest of the beneficiary and his dependents.

VA's inaction prompted the petitioner, in April 2022, to seek this Court's intervention. She 

asked the Court to compel VA to (1) issue a decision regarding her entitlement to be reinstated as 

representative payee for Mr. Shorette, (2) address her complaints that his then-current fiduciary 

was violating a July 2010 fiduciary agreement in which VA approved monthly expenses to support 

the veteran's family, and (3) release the withheld funds. See Petition (Pet.) at 1-3, Shorette 

v. McDonough, U.S. Vet. App. No. 22-4698 (Apr. 18, 2022).

After the Court convened a panel and held oral argument, in August 2023, the Court 

granted the petition in part; the Court issued a writ compelling the Secretary to process the 

Case: 23-7775 Page: 1 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
2

petitioner's 2018 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with VA's appointment of a paid fiduciary and 

concomitant removal of the veteran's legal guardian as his fiduciary. See Shorette v. McDonough, 

36 Vet.App. 297 (2023) (per curiam order), appeal dismissed, No. 24-1175, 2024 WL 939850, at 

*1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2024). The Court dismissed the part of her petition related to unpaid familial 

expenses from 2018 "because the petitioner ha[d] not demonstrated that VA's failure to act [wa]s 

frustrating the Court's prospective jurisdiction." Id. at 315.1

Two months later, the petitioner attempted to resolve the issue regarding familial expenses 

without having to return to the Court. In this regard, she made another request for VA to resume 

disbursing monthly funds for familial benefits and to release the funds withheld since 2018. 

Petitioner's Jan. 17, 2024, Solze Notice, Exhibit (Ex.) P. Of note, she reasserted that the current 

fiduciary "[wa]s violating the July 2010 fiduciary agreement in which VA approved monthly 

expenses in excess of $3000.00 to support the veteran's family"; that "there has been no response, 

much less corrective action, from . . . VA"; and that her complaints should have been more than 

adequate to notify "VA fiduciary program officials, if not the Secretary, of the wrongful 

withholding." Id.

In December 2023, the petitioner filed the instant petition because VA ignored her requests 

for the veteran's fiduciary file, still did not process her 2018 NOD, and despite the prior Court 

proceedings, did nothing to address her repeated complaints that the fiduciary had not been 

providing for the veteran's dependents since 2018. Pet. at 1-19; see Exs. A-H. Only after the Court 

ordered the Secretary to respond to the petition did VA release the veteran's fiduciary file and 

respond to the 2018 NOD. In that regard, the Indianapolis VA fiduciary hub manager, in January 

2024, initiated a "[s]uccessor [i]nitial [a]ppointment" to make the petitioner Mr. Shorette's 

fiduciary. Secretary's Jan. 18, 2024, Response (Resp.) at 4; see id. at 2-4, Exs. 1-2.

Given those actions, the Secretary urges the Court to dismiss the petition in part and deny

it in part. Id. at 4-8. Regarding the familial expenses, although he acknowledges that the petitioner 

made "assertions about expenses to VA," he asserts "that she has not alleged that she requested 

payment of any specific familial expense of the current fiduciary[,] nor has she submitted a misuse 

report to the fiduciary hub." Id. at 4. As support, the Secretary submits a report of general 

information, which indicates that the fiduciary denied any contact by the petitioner, and a 

declaration from an assistant coach at the fiduciary hub, stating that "there have been no . . . 

allegations of inappropriate or unacceptable actions received by the Indianapolis Fiduciary Hub 

against [VA's paid fiduciary]." Id., Ex. 5; see id. at 4-5, Exs. 4-5. The Secretary further avers that 

it is the fiduciary, not VA, who is responsible for administering the veteran's funds and that the 

fiduciary retains discretion while fulfilling those duties. Id. at 6, n.6.

After the Court received additional Solze notices, on May 1, 2024, the Court ordered the 

parties to file memoranda of law addressing in part whether the petitioner's letters requesting 

reimbursement for familial expenses entitle her to a written decision from VA. In response, the 

Secretary asserts that "VA does not possess or control any past-due benefits of the [v]eteran 

1 The Court did "not opine on what recourse the petitioner may have at the Agency or whether she could have 

any recourse at the Court if the fiduciary [wa]s inappropriately withholding funds," but the Court noted that "nothing 

in th[e] order prevent[ed] the petitioner from attempting once more to have VA address this matter." Shorette, 

36 Vet.App. at 315.

Case: 23-7775 Page: 2 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
3

beneficiary"; "all payments have been made to a fiduciary pursuant to [38 U.S.C. §] 5502"; and 

"[i]t is the fiduciary who has the duty and responsibility to make payment decisions." Secretary's 

May 29, 2024, Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2, 6. 

The Secretary maintains that VA's initial collection of information about the beneficiary's 

monthly expenses and notice to the appointed fiduciary of those expenses "is not a mandate from 

VA to pay particular bills nor a limitation to pay only those bills." Id. at 6; see id. at 4-6. Instead, 

he contends that the notice is intended to make the fiduciary aware of estimated beneficiary 

expenses and to assist VA in its oversight responsibilities. Id. at 4-6.

Further, because "it is the fiduciary, not VA, who is to make decisions about the 

expenditure of the VA-issued funds under [the fiduciary's] control," the Secretary reports that, if 

needs are not being met, the appropriate process is to contact the fiduciary who is empowered to 

make those decisions pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 13.140. Id. at 7-8. And if the fiduciary is not 

responsive, the Secretary asserts that the beneficiary may ask VA to remove that fiduciary. Id.

Here, the Secretary reiterates his prior assertions that the petitioner did neither—she did not contact 

the fiduciary or complain to the fiduciary hub. Id. at 8-9. In sum, the Secretary asserts that VA's 

duties involve appointment, oversight, and removal of fiduciaries, and therefore "a statement of 

the information gathered in a letter is not a decision of the [A]gency about the provision of 

benefits[,] and a complaint about its content is not a request for a decision." Id. at 6; see id. at 9-10

(citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 13.10, 13.100, 13.280, 13.400, 13.410, and 13.500 (2023)).

The petitioner subsequently informed the Court that, in March 2024, VA determined that 

she and Mr. Shorette are "estranged" because they are not living together. Petitioner's June 17, 

2024, Solze Notice at 1; see Declaration (Decl.) at ¶¶ 16, 19; Exs. B-D. She also reported that, 

because of this determination, VA concluded that it will not treat her as a "spouse fiduciary," and 

VA is instead requiring her to submit accountings and obtain a surety bond, obligations that are 

not normally required of spouse fiduciaries. Petitioner's June 17, 2024, Solze Notice at 1; see Decl.

at ¶¶ 16, 19, 21, 23; see also Exs. B-D, F. 

Because the petitioner and the veteran have been living apart since 2008 as a result of the 

veteran's disability and the petitioner acted as his fiduciary from 2008 to 2018 without VA 

previously considering them to be estranged, the Court ordered the Secretary to explain "[o]n what 

law, regulations, or other authority did the Secretary or the Fiduciary Program rely when 

determining that Mrs. Shorette is estranged from the veteran." Shorette v. McDonough, U.S. Vet. 

App. No. 23-7775 (July 18, 2024) (unpublished per curiam order), at 2. Additionally, given the 

Secretary's contention that VA does not possess the veteran's funds and that it is the fiduciary who 

makes decisions regarding expenditures, Secretary's May 29, 2024, MOL at 2, 6, the Court ordered 

the Secretary to inform the Court whether Mrs. Shorette, acting in her role as fiduciary, would 

require VA's permission to reimburse herself, as the veteran's dependent, for those expenses unpaid 

from 2018, Shorette, U.S. Vet. App. No. 23-7775 (July 18, 2024) (unpublished per curiam order), 

at 2.

In response, the Secretary submitted a declaration from a management and program analyst 

with the Pension and Fiduciary Service (P&F). Secretary's Aug. 8, 2024, Resp., Ex. 1. After 

outlining some of the events leading up to the petitioner's March 2024 appointment as a 

Case: 23-7775 Page: 3 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
4

"VA-appointed fiduciary," the analyst indicated that the VA field examiner erred when he 

documented estrangement as the reason to appoint the petitioner as a "VA-appointed fiduciary"

rather than as a "spouse fiduciary." Id., Decl. at ¶ 16. The analyst thus reported that "a new 

appointment is being coordinated with the [fiduciary] hub to reestablish Mrs. Shorette as the less 

restrictive spouse payee," but that the hub has 45 days to complete the appointment. Id. at ¶ 17.

Of significant import is the analyst's response to the Court's inquiry whether the petitioner 

acting in her role as fiduciary would require VA's permission to reimburse herself, as the veteran's 

dependent, for those expenses unpaid from 2018. Id. at ¶ 20. Contrary to earlier representations by 

the Secretary regarding the roles and responsibilities of VA and the fiduciary, the analyst 

responded as follows:

Yes, the fiduciary must provide evidence that reimbursement is warranted 

before VA will authorize a reimbursement of funds. 38 C[.]F[.]R[.] 

[§] 13.140(b)(3) explicitly states that the fiduciary may not derive a personal 

financial benefit from management or use of the beneficiary's funds. As such, VA 

only authorizes fiduciaries to reimburse themselves when a beneficiary's expense 

is initially paid from their own funds and reimbursement is due.

Id. (emphasis added).

Further, despite the analyst's acknowledgment that VA suspended the veteran's benefits in 

March 2018 and the undisputed fact that neither VA nor the prior paid fiduciary provided any 

funds to care for the veteran's dependents for 6 years, the analyst remarked: 

[T]here is no . . . evidence that Mrs. Shorette used her own funds for familial 

expenses, and a cause or need for reimbursement has not been demonstrated. 

Outside of this court case, VA would generally not approve such reimbursement 

due to the lack of evidence that it is a true reimbursement and not an action taken 

for financial gain.

VA notes that Mrs. Shorette has not presented VA with a figure or breakdown for 

the reimbursement being sought.

. . . . 

As such, Mrs. Shorette would need to specify the intended amount she wishes to

reimburse herself to ensure there [are] sufficient funds under management. VA

notes concerns with depleting the [v]eteran's VA funds to reimburse the fiduciary

for historical expenses without receiving any documentation or supporting need.

Id. (emphasis added).

Additionally, regarding Mrs. Shorette's responsibilities as the veteran's fiduciary—and 

despite the Secretary's prior assertions that "[i]t is the fiduciary who has the duty and responsibility 

to make payment decisions," and the budget information provided by VA to the fiduciary "is not 

a mandate from VA to pay particular bills nor a limitation to pay only those bills," Secretary's 

May 29, 2024, MOL at 6 (emphasis added)—the analyst noted:

Case: 23-7775 Page: 4 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
5

In a letter dated March 18, 2024, VA notified Mrs. Shorette of her appointment as 

fiduciary. The letter included a budget[] outlining that Mrs. Shorette must provide

the [v]eteran $100.00 per month in personal spending.

. . . . 

P&F also stresses that Mrs. Shorette is expected to follow the budget outlined in the 

notification letter dated March 18, 2024, which provides that the beneficiary is to 

receive $100 per month for personal needs/incidentals. Failure to comply with 

giving the beneficiary adequate funds was the reason for her initial removal and 

failure to do so again could result in another fiduciary replacement.

Secretary's Aug. 8, 2024, Resp., Ex. 1, Decl. at ¶¶ 18, 20 (emphasis added).2

II. CONCEDED ERRORS

The Court held oral argument on August 27, 2024, during which the Secretary conceded 

numerous errors made by VA and the prior paid fiduciary related to disbursing and managing the 

beneficiary's (veteran's) funds "according to the best interests of the beneficiary and the 

beneficiary's dependents and in light of the beneficiary's unique circumstances, needs, desires, 

beliefs, and values." 38 C.F.R. § 13.140(a)(1) (2024) (emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R. § 13.120(b) 

(2024) (providing a nonexhaustive list of inquiries, investigations, or monitoring activities that 

may be conducted during a VA field examination, including "[a]ssessing a beneficiary's and the 

beneficiary's dependents' welfare . . . and overall financial situation"). Specifically, the Secretary 

made the following admissions:

• Although VA suggested that the petitioner's allotment for family expenses had been 

terminated because she did not cooperate with a VA field examination, VA failed to contact 

the petitioner's attorney after she explained, in March 2019, that she would not talk to the 

field examiner while her appeal of VA's misuse determination was pending, but she told 

the field examiner to contact her attorney. See Oral Argument (OA) at 47:50-48:20; see 

also Secretary's May 29, 2024, MOL, Ex. 1 (March 2019 field examination report 

reflecting that the petitioner provided the field examiner with the name, address, and 

telephone number of her attorney).

• It was the prior fiduciary's duty to obtain information about the dependent's expenses, and 

there is no indication the prior fiduciary did so. See OA at 51:30-51:53; see also OA at 

58:11-58:18 ("I don't know that the other fiduciary was particularly aware and that may be 

a failing both on the part of the fiduciary and the field exam that resulted in the 

appointment.").

• The fiduciary hub field examiner also should have gathered information regarding the 

dependent's expenses and provided it to the fiduciary. OA at 49:40-50:10. But see VA

FIDUCIARY PROGRAM MANUAL (FPM), pt.1, ch. 1, § B.5.f ("The [field examiner] is 

2 The Court notes that VA's response to the petition reflects that the VA medical facility where the veteran 

resides had asked the paid fiduciary to "stop placing funds in the [veteran's] Patient Funds Account as the balance was 

in excess of $1500.00 and the funds were not being utilized." Secretary's Jan. 18, 2024, Resp., Ex. 4.

Case: 23-7775 Page: 5 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
6

responsible for taking independent corrective action immediately, when appropriate, to 

ensure the [] proper use of VA/beneficiary funds.") (emphasis added); see also 38 C.F.R. 

§ 13.120(b).

• VA took no proactive steps to initiate corrective action even though the petitioner 

repeatedly wrote to VA indicating that the family's expenses were not being paid. OA at 

48:45-49:30. But see FPM, pt.1, ch. 1, § B.5.f.

• VA did not contact the veteran's fiduciary between 2018 and 2024 to inform the fiduciary 

that one of the veteran's dependents was not being taken care of. OA at 48:45-49:30. But 

see 38 C.F.R. § 13.120(b).

• Despite the prior fiduciary agreement budgeting over $3,000 per month for familial 

expenses, VA did not consider Mrs. Shorette's repeated reports—including the October 

2023 letter alleging that the paid fiduciary had not provided for the veteran's dependents

for more than 5 years—an allegation of inappropriate action. OA at 59:26-1:00:25.

• The August 2024 declaration from the P&F analyst reads like a mandate—the petitioner 

"'is expected to follow the budget'" and that "'[f]ailure to comply . . . could result in another 

fiduciary replacement,'" but contending "that is not correct." OA at 53:03-55:05 (quoting 

Secretary's Aug. 8, 2024, Resp., Ex. 1, Decl. at ¶ 20).

• VA erred when it cited estrangement as the reason for the nature of Mrs. Shorette's 

appointment as a VA-appointed fiduciary instead of the less restrictive spouse payee. OA 

at 1:07:25-1:08:00.

• In the August 2024 declaration, the P&F analyst did not mean to say that Mrs. Shorette 

would "need" VA's permission to reimburse herself. The affirmative response to the Court's 

specific question whether Mrs. Shorette needed VA's permission was meant to convey that 

seeking and receiving VA's permission in advance would simply assure her that VA did 

not find such a disbursement to be a misuse or a failure to properly fulfill the duties of a 

fiduciary. OA at 42:03-43:33.

• Notwithstanding all the conceded errors, if Mrs. Shorette reimburses herself without VA's 

permission for the expenses she paid since 2018, in VA's oversight capacity, it "might need 

to investigate and gather information" whether that disbursement was appropriate and, if 

VA decides that it was not appropriate or a misuse of funds, VA could remove her as 

fiduciary. OA at 1:00:25-1:03:46; see OA at 42:03-43:33.

In sum, VA admittedly erred in 2018 when it determined that Mrs. Shorette misused the 

veteran's funds, and the undisputed facts reflect that VA compounded that error over the next 

6 years by ignoring Mrs. Shorette's complaints and failing to ensure that the prior paid fiduciary 

was fulfilling his duties to assess the welfare and overall financial situation of the veteran's 

dependents. In that regard, counsel for the Secretary could not offer any reason why the fiduciary 

budget for familial expenses was reduced from roughly $3,200 per month to zero, other than an 

unfounded allegation that the petitioner refused to comply with a field examination, and counsel 

Case: 23-7775 Page: 6 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
7

was unable or unwilling to say that VA will not investigate Mrs. Shorette if she reimbursed herself 

with those funds that would not have accumulated in the veteran's managed account but for VA's 

or the prior fiduciary's errors. 

The Court will thus require the Secretary to file a supplemental memorandum of law 

addressing why VA appears to be unwilling to make a preemptive decision that it will not initiate 

a misuse determination or seek to remove Mrs. Shorette as fiduciary if she reimburses herself the 

amount of familial expenses that was in the prior budget but unpaid. The Secretary should 

specifically address the P&F analyst's statement that VA has "concerns" regarding the amount that 

the petitioner seeks to withdraw from the veteran's funds currently under management, Secretary's 

Aug. 8, 2024, Resp., Ex. 1, Decl. at ¶ 20, given that (1) all evidence before the Court suggests that 

those funds would not have accumulated had VA or the prior fiduciary properly fulfilled their

duties to the veteran's dependents, (2) "[t]he United States pays compensation to veterans when 

they have, in honorable service to their nation, suffered a loss that is reflected in the decreased 

ability to earn a living for themselves and their families," Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 292, 296 

(1991) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Ward v. Wilkie, 31 Vet.App. 233 (2019), 

and (3) evidence before the Court suggests that the veteran is not able to use additional funds 

himself, see Secretary's Jan. 18, 2024, Resp., Ex. 4. Additionally, the Court will order the parties 

to participate in another conference with a member of the Court's Central Legal Staff to discuss 

whether there is a mutually agreeable resolution to the matter. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 2, 33(a).

III. SANCTIONS

This Court, like other federal courts, "possesses the inherent as well as the statutory 

authority to impose sanctions." Pousson v. Shinseki, 22 Vet.App. 432, 436 (2009) (per curiam 

order); see 18 U.S.C. § 401; 38 U.S.C. § 7265. Although a court considering whether to impose 

sanctions "'must take care to determine that the conduct at issue actually abused the judicial 

process,' . . . such action is not limited . . . to circumstances involving bad faith" or willfulness. 

Pousson, 22 Vet.App. at 436-37 (first quoting Jones v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 596, 607 (1991); 

then citing United States v. Saccoccia, 342 F. Supp. 2d 25, 30 (D.R.I. 2004), rev'd on other 

grounds, 433 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2005); then citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 

767 (1980); and then citing 18 U.S.C. § 401).

Pursuant to statute, sanctions are permitted when there is "'misbehavior' before the Court 

'or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice,' or . . . 'misbehavior of any of its 

officers in their official transactions' or . . . 'disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, 

order, rule, decree, or command.'" Id. at 437 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7265). In Pousson, the Court 

established "three essential elements" to hold a party in civil contempt: (1) "there must be an order 

that is 'clear and unambiguous'"; (2) "the proof of non-compliance with that order must be 'clear 

and convincing'"; and (3) "it must be shown that the contemnor has not 'been reasonably diligent 

and energetic in attempting to accomplish what was ordered.'" Id. (citations omitted).

Here, the Secretary filed at least two pleadings representing to the Court that it is the 

VA-appointed fiduciary, not VA, who is responsible for managing a beneficiary's funds and 

determining the best interests of the beneficiary and the beneficiary's dependents. See Secretary's 

Jan. 18, 2024, Resp.; Secretary's May 29, 2024, MOL. Less than 3 weeks before oral argument, 

Case: 23-7775 Page: 7 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
8

however, the Secretary responded affirmatively to the Court's question "whether Mrs. Shorette 

acting in her role as fiduciary would require VA's permission to reimburse herself, as the veteran's 

dependent, for those expenses unpaid from 2018." Shorette, U.S. Vet. App. No. 23-7775 (July 18, 

2024) (unpublished per curiam order), at 2; see Secretary's Aug. 8, 2024, Resp., Ex. 1, Decl. at 

¶ 20 ("Yes, the fiduciary must provide evidence that reimbursement is warranted before VA will 

authorize a reimbursement of funds."). The P&F analyst indicated that Mrs. Shorette must provide 

clear evidence that she used her own funds to pay familial expenses during a period when VA had 

withheld all payments and that she would have to demonstrate "a cause or need for 

reimbursement." Secretary's Aug. 8, 2024, Resp., Ex. 1, Decl. at ¶ 20.

The Court relied in part on the analyst's declaration to prepare for oral argument only for 

the Secretary to then disavow her representations. Counsel stated that it would not violate the 

fiduciary rules for Mrs. Shorette to reimburse herself and that the petitioner would not need VA's 

permission to reimburse herself. See OA at 42:03-43:33. Additionally, although the analyst 

indicated that Mrs. Shorette "must provide the [v]eteran $100.00 per month in personal spending," 

that she "is expected to follow the budget," and that "[f]ailure to comply . . . could result in another 

fiduciary replacement," counsel stated that that information was "not correct." Secretary's Aug. 8, 

2024, Resp., Ex. 1, Decl. at ¶¶ 18, 20; OA at 53:03-55:05.

The Court will thus order the Secretary to show cause why counsel's failure to correct 

statements that VA knew to be false prior to the oral argument was not an abuse of the judicial 

process and that sanctions are not warranted. See generally Jones, 1 Vet.App. at 607 ("The failure 

to correct promptly a statement made in response to a direct question from the Court, a statement 

which was discovered to have been false and which was expressly relied upon by the Court, 

constituted 'misbehavior [which obstructed] the administration of justice.'" (quoting 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7265(a)(1))).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Secretary, within 14 days after the date of this order, file a 

supplemental memorandum of law, not exceeding 5 pages, addressing why VA will not make a 

preemptive determination that reimbursement would not be considered misuse of the veteran's 

funds. It is further

ORDERED that the Court will schedule a staff conference within 14 days after the 

Secretary files his supplemental memorandum of law, and this conference may be rescheduled by 

the Court only upon a showing of good cause. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 33. It is further

ORDERED that the attorney or representative for both parties shall attend the conference 

with the authority to resolve any of the outstanding matters presented in the petition to the extent 

authorized by the client or be within immediate contact with such a person during the staff 

conference. It is further

ORDERED that the parties, within 14 days after the date of the conference, notify the Court 

whether they are negotiating a joint resolution as to this matter. It is further

Case: 23-7775 Page: 8 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024
9

ORDERED that the Secretary, within 30 days after the date of this order, show cause why 

sanctions are not appropriate. It is further

ORDERED that proceedings are otherwise stayed pending further order of the Court. 

DATED: September 20, 2024 PER CURIAM.

Case: 23-7775 Page: 9 of 9 Filed: 09/20/2024