Musselman v. Army

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJuly 20, 2017
Docket16-2522
StatusPublished

This text of Musselman v. Army (Musselman v. Army) 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
Musselman v. Army, (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JEFFERY S. MUSSELMAN, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent ______________________

2016-2522 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA-1221-14-0499-W-3. ______________________

ON PETITION FOR HEARING EN BANC ______________________

ROBERT J. GAJARSA, Latham & Watkins LLP, Wash- ington, DC, filed a petition for hearing en banc for peti- tioner Jeffery S. Musselman. Also represented by GABRIEL BELL, SAVANNAH KENT BURGOYNE, MICHAEL J. GERARDI, EMILY K. SAUTER.

MARIANA TERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for respondent Department of the Army. Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., CLAUDIA BURKE; REBECCA E. AUSPRUNG, United States Army Litigation Division, Fort Belvoir, VA. 2 MUSSELMAN v. ARMY

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. ∗ WALLACH, Circuit Judge, with whom NEWMAN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges, join, dissent from the denial of the petition for hearing en banc for the reasons stated in the dissent from denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in Fedora v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 15- 3039. STOLL, Circuit Judge, dissents without opinion from the denial of the petition for hearing en banc. PER CURIAM. ORDER Petitioner Jeffery S. Musselman filed a petition for in- itial hearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by respondent Department of the Army. The petition and response were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for initial hearing en banc is denied.

FOR THE COURT

July 20, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

∗ Circuit Judge Moore did not participate.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Musselman v. Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/musselman-v-army-cafc-2017.