Whether the D.C. Circuit erred in its rulings on the Privacy Act's verification requirement and the due process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. The Privacy Act requires an agency to verify the accuracy of its information against the factual records of independent and objective third parties. 5 U.S.C. §552a(e)(5);, Doe v. U.S., 821 F.2d 694, 699-701 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (en banc). A. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred when it . decided that Respondents Donna Hansberry, Donna Prestia, and Thomas Collins were not required to verify the accuracy of their Notice of Proposed Termination against the factual records of independent and objective third parties? ‘ Il. Before an agency can deprive a person . of life, liberty, or property, an agency must provide the person with a “meaningful opportunity to be heard”. A “meaningful opportunity to be heard” occurs when an agency has provided the person with notice of its charges, notice of the evidence against . him, and notice of its intent to meet with him. Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 626-27 (1977); ; Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974); Doe v. Dept. of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. ; 1985). ; Whether the D.C. Circuit erred when it ; determined that Donna Hansberry, Donna Prestia, and Thomas Collins were only il . required to provide Petitioner Anica . Ashbourne with their Notice of Proposed Termination and with an opportunity to refute it? © ;