Whether a pro se litigant can challenge a court of appeals mandate when not timely informed by counsel about potential en banc review options

No question identified. : 10. On June 4, 2025, I visited the DC Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office and inquired about filing a motion to request an en banc panel review and was told that I have to file a motion to recall the mandate first that was signed on May 29, 2025. 11. I was provided a copy of the mandate that I only became aware of on June 4, 2025. 12. [completed my motion to recall the mandate and returned to the DC Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office to file it on June 6, 2025; I also reached out to the opposing counsel and forwarded a copy of the motion by certified mail on June 6, 2025. (Email to opposing counsel and Proof of Service attached) 13. Upon returning to the DC Court of Appeals on June 6, 2025, I was informed by the Clerk’s Office that I could not file the motion pro se to recall the mandate because the attorney of record had not withdrawn her appearance. Upon being advised of the aforementioned, I reached out to Ms. Buck and explained to her that I became aware of the en banc panel review and the mandate on June 4, 2025 and the Clerk’s Office Supervisor informed me that Ms. Buck as the attorney of record was the only person who could file a motion to recall the mandate and that she could file the motion to recall the mandate and the withdrawal of her appearance together, so that I could move forward as pro se to request the en banc panel review. 14. If] were made aware of an en bane panel review through my attorney of record prior to the mandate being signed, I would have certainly requested a petition for an en banc panel review to exhaust all of my remedies within the DC Court of Appeals timelines. 15. I was informed by Ms. Buck on June 10, 2025 that the DC Court of Appeals accepted her filings to recall the mandate and the withdrawal of her appearance. Thank you to the Court for your gracious consideration in this matter. Sent by certified mail on July 31, 2025 Sincere AWA ; Cheryl J. Steele 1913 Kenyon Street, NW Washington, DC 20010 (202) 302-2410 Cpiceo@live.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-CV-0887 = TP OE Oa CHERYL STEELE, APPELLANT, | Vv. a eersemevere | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS MICAH SALB, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Hon. Shana Frost Matini, Trial Judge) (Submitted October 2, 2024 Decided May 7, 2025) Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, DEAHL and EASTERLY, Associate Judges. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT PER CURIAM: This case comes to us following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Micah Salb. Appellant Cheryl Steele contends that the trial court erred in holding that she received adequate notice of an execution sale and that genuine issues of material fact existed as to prevent summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we reject Ms. Steele’s arguments and affirm the trial court. I. Factual and Procedural Background In 2006, Ms. Steele retained Mr. Salb to represent her in an employment discrimination suit. Subsequently, in 2009, Ms. Steele filed a lawsuit for malpractice against Mr. Salb and his firm Lippman, Semesker & Salb, LLC, which then filed a counterclaim seeking unpaid legal fees (2009 Lawsuit). On July 28, 2016, judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Salb and against Ms. Steele for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $113,354.97. At the time of judgment, Ms. Steele was the owner of the RECEIVED AUG 6 2025 real property located at 1601 18th Street, SE, Washington, D.C. (Property). Ms. Steele has never resided at the Property. On August 18, 2016, Mr. Salb requested a writ of fieri facias via praecipe and subsequently recorded the judgment with the Recorder of Deeds on September 19, 2016. Ms. Steele filed a motion to set aside the judgment, stay execution of the judgment, a