Becker v. Merit Systems Protection Board

47 F. App'x 939
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedOctober 9, 2002
DocketNo. 02-3136
StatusPublished

This text of 47 F. App'x 939 (Becker v. Merit Systems Protection Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Becker v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 47 F. App'x 939 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cheryl Becker seeks review of the October 26, 2001, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, No. AT315H010632-I-1, dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction because she withdrew her appeal. We affirm.

A board decision must be affirmed unless it is found to be: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000). Becker argues that her attorney erred in advising her to withdraw her board appeal. It is well settled, however, that Becker “is bound by the consequences of [her] representative’s conduct,” even if she “acted in good faith in relying on the advice and actions” of her attorney. Rowe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 802 F.2d 434, 437 (Fed.Cir.1986). Because her appeal was withdrawn, the board properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we also lack jurisdiction over [940]*940this appeal, and may not consider the merits of the case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Norman R. Rowe v. Merit Systems Protection Board
802 F.2d 434 (Federal Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 F. App'x 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-merit-systems-protection-board-cafc-2002.