UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

JOHN EDWARDS ANDERSO N, Appellant,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTIC E, Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DC

- 1221

- 12

- 0544

- B

- 2

DATE: August 19, 2016



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

Deryn Sumner , Esquire, and Kevin L. Owen , Esquire, Silver Spring, Maryland, for the appellant. Margo L. Chan and Susan E. Gibson , Esquire , Alexandria, Virginia, for the agency.

BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the April 29, 2016 initial decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 5; Petition for Review (PFR)

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c).2

File , Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for r eview

as settled. ¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
titled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated on June 21, 2016

. PFR
File , Tab 3. The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the petition for review. Id

. ¶3 Before d ismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Serv ice , 37 M.S.P.R. 146 , 149 (1988). We find here that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they understand the terms, and that they agree that the agreement will not be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. PFR File , Tab 3. ¶4 Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for review “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this app eal) is

appro priate under these circumstances. ¶5 This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protecti on Board in this appeal.
Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 )

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The court must receive your request for review no la ter than 60 calendar days after the date of this order

. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management
, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).3

If you want to request review of the Board’s decision concerning your
claims of prohibited personnel practice s under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8), (b)(9)(A)(i), (b)(9)(B), (b)(9)(C), or (b)(9)(D), but you do not want to challenge the Board’s disposition of any other claims of prohibited personnel practices, you may request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The court of appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days after the date of this
order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(B) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. You may choose to request review of the
Board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the Federal Circuit or any other court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, but not both. Once you choose to seek review in one court of appeals, you may be precluded from seeking review in any other court. If you need further information about y our right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the F ederal law that gives you this right. It is found in
title 5 of the U.S. Code, section 7703 ( 5 U.S.C. § 7703 ) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the U.S. Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm

. Additional information
about the U.S. Court of Appeals for th e Federal Circuit is available at the court’ s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov . Of pa rticular relevance is the court’s “ Guide
for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” whic h is contained within the court’ s Rules of Practice , and Forms 5, 6, and 11. Additional information about other courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The4

Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warra nts that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. ______________________________ Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board