SEGUIN v. << (2020)

Crisell Seguin petitions for review of orders from the United States Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) awarding her relief in her action seeking whistleblower protection. Seguin has filed a motion to hold her petitions for review in abeyance pending disposition by the Supreme Court of a petition for a writ of certiorari she states she intends to file regarding our related decision in Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States Department of Labor, 927 F.3d 226, 236 (4th Cir. 2019). Although we “may ․ place a case in abeyance pending disposition of matters before this [c]ourt or other courts which may affect the ultimate resolution of an appeal,” 4th Cir. R. 12(d), we decline to do so here because the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari expired without Seguin doing so. We therefore deny her motion for abeyance.

Additionally, in Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., “we grant[ed] Northrop’s petitions for review, vacate[d] the orders of the ARB and the [administrative law judge (ALJ),] and remand[ed] the case to the ALJ with instructions to dismiss Seguin’s administrative complaint and enter judgment in favor of Northrop.” 927 F.3d at 236. Here, each of Seguin’s challenges revolves around her original administrative complaint. In light of the holding in our published decision, see id., Seguin’s petitions for review are moot.

Accordingly, we dismiss Seguin’s petitions for review. We also deny her motion to appoint counsel and grant her motion to extend the time to file a reply. 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.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.