Case: 25-1014 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KARLA SUE PODLUCKY, GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1014 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01124-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg- ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss- ing appellants’ case for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have not responded but have filed their opening brief. Case: 25-1014 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2025

2 PODLUCKY v. US

As noted in our previous decisions involving the appel- lants, 1 Gregory Joseph Podlucky pleaded guilty to certain crimes and agreed to forfeit “all pieces of gems and jewelry that were seized as evidence . . . with the exception of cer- tain personal pieces to be agreed upon by the parties.” Pod- lucky III, 2022 WL 2951461, at *1 (cleaned up). Appellants subsequently filed multiple, unsuccessful cases seeking compensation based on an alleged violation of that agreement. In their most recent attempt, appel- lants filed this suit in the Court of Federal Claims, assert- ing “a breach-of-contract claim against the government,” alleging “the government agreed to return nearly $5 mil- lion in jewelry” as “memorialized in Mr. Podlucky’s June 2011 plea agreement,” Dkt. No. 1 at 1 (citation omitted). The trial court dismissed the case, and this appeal fol- lowed. As we have previously explained, the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over claims for alleged breach of this plea agreement, Podlucky I, 2022 WL 1791065, at *2; the “appropriate forum for Mr. Podlucky’s claims regarding the alleged breach of his plea agreement was the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsyl- vania” (which already denied relief), id. (citing United States v. Podlucky, No. 2:09-cr-278, ECF No. 151 at 10 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2021)); and any alleged taking claim here is time-barred, Podlucky III, 2022 WL 2951461 at *1. Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate because the Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

1 See Podlucky v. United States, No. 2022-1319, 2022 WL 2951461 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2022) (“Podlucky III”); Pod- lucky v. United States, No. 2022-1328, 2022 WL 2951453 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2022) (“Podlucky II”); Podlucky v. United States, No. 2021-2226, 2022 WL 1791065 (Fed. Cir. June 2, 2022) (“Podlucky I”). Case: 25-1014 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 01/29/2025

PODLUCKY v. US 3

“is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States’s motion for summary affir- mance is granted, and the Court of Federal Claims’s judg- ment is summarily affirmed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

January 29, 2025 Date