1. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1713 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal or, in this case, a
rehearing petition. See In re Lockheed Martin Corn.. 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.a.
2007T
Ash does not satisfy the standard for mandamus relief.
Accordingly, wc deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

b. IV. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED
Because Lockheed is entitled to a jury trial, the district court erred by striking
Lockheed 's jury demand. We therefore grant Lockheed's petition for the
issuance of a writ of mandamus and we direct the district court on remand to try
the case before a jury.
In re Lockheed Martin Corp.. 503 F.3d 351 1 Casetext Search + Citator

2. Why didn 't the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Remand the case back to the District Court
of Maryland if the case Cited above was Remanded on the Same Issue of Trial by Jury.

3. If the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that Pending Motions had not been decided
after the Mandamus Appeal on 3/28/23 then Why didn 't the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Specifically State the Deficiencies in its Final Decision on 8/28/23 while Motions were
Still Pending so the District Court of Maryland would Act in Accordance with the Law.

4. If the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has Exclusive Jurisdiction of Final
Agency Decisions from the MSPB then why did the DOJ request Ash v OPM be
transferred to the District Court of Maryland.

Question not identified.