Case: 13-3061 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2013

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JAMES F. OUTLAW, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. ______________________

2013-3061 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in consolidated Nos. DE0752110279-I-2 and DE0752110514-I-1. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________ Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER James F. Outlaw moves for reconsideration of the court’s previous rejection of his petition for review. The Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) issued its final order on October 19, 2012. Mr. Outlaw received Case: 13-3061 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/19/2013

2 JAMES OUTLAW v. ARMY

the order via electronic mail on October 19, 2012. * Mr. Outlaw’s petition was received by this court on December 21, 2012, sixty-three days after he received the Board’s final order. Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which provides in relevant part that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any peti- tion for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (2012). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived). We also note that the petition for review must be received by this court by the due date, Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A), and that peti- tions for review cannot be filed by fax or electronically with this court, Fed. Cir. R. 25. Because Mr. Outlaw’s petition was not received with- in 60 days of the date he received the Board’s decision, we must dismiss his petition as untimely. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Mr. Outlaw’s motion for reconsideration is denied, and his petition is dismissed. (2) All sides shall bear their own costs.

*Mr. Outlaw is a registered electronic filer with the Board. The regulation governing the dates for service of electronic documents at the Board states, in relevant part, “MSPB documents served electronically on registered e- filers are deemed received on the date of electronic sub- mission.” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2). Case: 13-3061 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 06/19/2013

JAMES OUTLAW v. ARMY 3 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole Daniel E. O'Toole Clerk

s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 19, 2013