Case: 25-119 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ RODNEY L. DAVIS, THOMAS M. DAVIS, III, EDWIN G. PERLMUTTER, RICK CRAWFORD, MARK KIRK, JAMES CLYBURN, STENY HOYER, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Respondent ______________________ 2025-119 ______________________ On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(d)(2) from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00364-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER Case: 25-119 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2025

2 DAVIS v. US

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2), petitioners seek permission to appeal an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting in part the United States’s mo- tion to dismiss petitioners’ claims for lost pay and retire- ment benefits. The United States responds, taking no position on whether the court should permit interlocutory review.

Under § 1292(d)(2), the Court of Federal Claims may certify that an order that is not otherwise immediately ap- pealable is one involving a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially ad- vance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Ulti- mately, this court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal an interloc- utory order. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Pat.

Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, we decline to grant permission to appeal under § 1292(d)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for permission to appeal is denied.

FOR THE COURT

May 20, 2025 Date