Question not identified.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1713 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2 a. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal or, in this case, a rehearing petition. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir, 2007). Ash does not satisfy the standard for mandamus relief. Accordingly, we 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 | Casetext Search + Citator 2. Why didn’t the 4" 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 4 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 4" 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. Ifthe 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 vOPM be | transferred to the District Court of Maryland. {ii) Ash v OPM . 23-1713