United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5309 September Term, 2025 1:23-cv-02574-UNA Filed On: October 6, 2025 Martin Akerman, Appellant v. Merit Systems Protection Board, et al., Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing; the motion for reconsideration of the court’s order filed on July 16, 2025; the motion for a limited remand to the district court; the motion to refund the filing fee; the motions to transfer this case; the motion for an expedited ruling on appellant’s in forma pauperis status; the motion to supplement the record; and the motion to appoint counsel, it is ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be denied. Appellant has not shown that reconsideration is warranted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a limited remand be denied. Appellant has not shown that remand is warranted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to refund the filing fee be denied.

Appellant has not shown that this case presents any circumstances warranting a refund. It is United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5309 September Term, 2025 FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to transfer be denied. This court is the only appropriate court to consider an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, see 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1), and appellant has provided no valid basis for this court to transfer the underlying district court case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an expedited ruling on appellant’s in forma pauperis status be dismissed as moot. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on July 16, 2025, and he has now paid the appellate filing fee. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record be denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s December 18, 2023 order denying appellant’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a preliminary injunction be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to establish that he qualified for in forma pauperis status. Insofar as appellant argues that he is exempt from paying court fees under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, see 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b) and 20 C.F.R. § 1002.310, he has not demonstrated that this case is subject to that provision. With respect to the district court’s denial of injunctive relief, appellant raises no arguments on appeal about the Merit Systems Protection Board’s transition to an electronic appeals docketing system, which was the action appellant sought to enjoin. He has therefore forfeited any argument that he was entitled to injunctive relief with respect to that action.

See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Appellant is cautioned that the court looks with disfavor on the filing of repetitive submissions, which burden the court and may contribute to further delays in this case.

Page 2 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-5309 September Term, 2025 Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 3