Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Jimmy L. Brown, Petitioner, v. Office of Personnel Management, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. - 895 F.2d 1421
Jan. 19, 1990
Before RICH, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Jimmy L. Brown appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, docket number DA07318810662, denying his Petition for Review of the Administrative Judge's (AJ's) initial decision. The AJ affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) which found Brown unsuitable for a position as a Park Ranger and barred him from accepting a job in the federal competitive service until September 12, 1990. We affirm.
OPINION
The scope of our review of the AJ's findings of fact is very limited. Respondent's brief at "2" spells out these limitations. See 5 USC 7703(c) (1982). We have carefully reviewed Brown's arguments, all of which relate solely to the AJ's findings on his tardiness, AWOL, and like factual questions, and find that the AJ's findings, weighing all the evidence, are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Appellant filed on December 12, 1989, a paper in the form of a letter addressed to the court which he characterized as a "motion for the Court to disregard certain false statements made by the Respondent's attorney in her informal brief." Insofar as it is deemed by appellant to be a motion in the legal procedure sense, it is denied. However, since in substance it is in the nature of a reply brief responding to certain assertions made in the OPM's informal brief, we have treated it as such and have fully taken into consideration its contents. As a reply brief, we have also waived the untimeliness of its filing.