Recent Successes Obtained on Behalf of Our Clients

Note: It is important to remember that while some cases may appear similar to others, all cases are unique; success in one case does not guarantee success in another. We do not guarantee a certain outcome; to do so violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility. In addition, the results of a case are determined by a variety of factors, including facts and evidence presented, whether the client follows counsel recommendations and the stage in the proceedings at which our services are retained. Case results are only posted with the informed consent of the client.


Complainant v. Smithsonian (2019)- A five-figure settlement in a discrimination suit that included all attorney fees, out of pocket medical expenses, and a five-figure sum for emotional distress. Additionally, the complainant’s performance appraisal rating was changed to the highest rating, and all adverse language was removed.

Complainant v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018)- Negotiation that resulted in retroactive reinstatement, increased performance rating, and a five-figure lump-sum payment for an employee who was removed for unacceptable performance.

Complainant v. FERC (2018)- Negotiated a six-figure settlement on behalf of a client alleging a hostile work environment and reprisal.

Complainant v. U.S. Health and Human Services (2018)- Negotiated a settlement of 5-months back pay, six figures in damages, and clean-record retirement for an officer who had been removed from service on allegations of misrepresentation and conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer.

Phoebe O. v. National Reconnaissance Office (2018)- The Office of Federal Operations vacated the National Reconnaissance Office’s procedurally deficient Final Agency Decision, which was issued after Ms. McKinin’s client had already timely submitted a valid hearing request. OFO ordered that Ms. McKinin’s client’s EEOC hearing request be remanded to the Hearings Unit for processing.

Complainant v. Department of the Air Force (2018) – An EEOC Administrative Judge found the Agency was liable for discriminating against the employee on the basis of race and in reprisal for prior EEO activity. Negotiated retroactive reinstatement with interest and backpay, guaranteed re-appointment, and a six-figure lump sum reward.

Complainant v. Defense Media Activity (2017)- Obtained a liability finding after a default judgment for retaliation, age, gender, and disability discrimination on behalf of a client who was denied accommodation. A sizable settlement that included relief beyond that awarded in the liability finding was granted.

Complainant v. Dep’t of Homeland Security (2017)- Represented an employee who alleged sex and retaliation discrimination against her agency and received one of the biggest awards ever given by an EEOC Administrative Judge, which included six-figures in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, six-figures in pecuniary compensatory damages and six-figures in attorney fees.

Appellant v. Social Security Administration (2017)- Argued for an employee of the Social Security Administration in front of a Federal Circuit Court. The Court vacated and remanded the matter in a precedential decision clarifying the use of comparator information in a federal agency penalty case.

Appellant v. Central Intelligence Agency (2017)- Successfully appealed to the EEOC in a previously dismissed sexual harassment case. The Administrative Judge ordered that the CIA investigate the claims internally.

Complainant v. Central Intelligence Agency(2017)- Ms. D’Agostino successfully represented a senior CIA employee who faced retaliation after reporting disability discrimination and harassment following treatment for cancer, in an administrative hearing before the EEOC. An Administrative Judge found the CIA liable for discrimination and awarded appropriate relief.

Plaintiffs v. Department of Education (2017)- A seven-figure settlement was rewarded to a group of former employees of the Department of Education who alleged disability and age discrimination, stemming from a 2005 Reduction in Force (“RIF”).

Appellant v. Transportation Security Administration (2016)– A successful Independent Right of Action (IRA) case in which an MSPB Administrative Judge overruled the Office of Special Counsel and ordered corrective action and other relief for a federal whistleblower.

Complainant v. Department of the Army (2016)- Settlement in a non-promotion complaint brought by an employee alleging gender and age discrimination, including the promotion and payments into the retirement system so the client received credit for the years she was denied the promotion due to discrimination.


Protest of RANA Technologies Enterprises (2018)- The government contracting team successfully represented an unsuccessful offeror in a bid protest of a subcontract award before the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Within days of filing the protest, the Government issued a notice of corrective action, which inter alia, identified irregularities in the award, acknowledged that errors were made in the assignment, and ultimately resulted in the termination of the subcontract award.

Successful Appeal of Base Debarment (2017)- The government contracting team successfully represented a contractor on the appeal of a base debarment from certain DoD installations overseas. After review of the surrounding facts and circumstances examined in the written appeal, the Department of the Army approved the appeal and reinstated the contractor’s access to all previously barred installations. The contractor has since returned to working overseas on behalf of the United States military.

Asia Commerce Network (2017)- The government contracting team successfully represented a government contractor who the Government had unjustifiably terminated for default from a commercial item supply contract for the delivery of fuel to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. On appeal, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found the Government had not met its burden to demonstrate a prima facie case of the contractor’s default. The termination was converted from a termination for default to a termination for convenience.

Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Seizure (2017)- The government contracting team successfully represented a client in a request for remission or mitigation of funds seized as a result of an asset forfeiture matter from 2010. The government contracting team was able to demonstrate to the U.S. Postal Inspector Service that the funds seized seven years earlier were, in fact, traceable to a legitimate source and were remitted back to the client.

Zuhmat Group Construction (2016)- The government contracting team successfully represented a government contractor on appeal before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. On appeal, we claimed that the contractor was entitled to compensation for delivery fees and invoices left outstanding on its delivered orders. After a summary proceeding before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Administrative Judge issued a binding decision sustaining the contractor’s appeal of all four orders and granting the contractor full payment on its invoices, plus interest.


U.S. v. Juvenile (2017)- 15 year old charged as an adult with felony malicious wounding as a result of him stabbing the alleged victim in the heart. First trial ended in a mistrial due to juror misconduct and the second trial ended in a full acquittal.

U.S. v. Jacob L. Pease (2016)- Mr. Montalvo successfully appealed the case to NMCCA and when the government appealed he successfully briefed and argued the matter before CAAF – the military’s supreme court. The result was a landmark decision in the arena of sexual assault in the military. The issue of consent in sexual assault cases when intoxication is involved has been at the heart of countless military cases over the years. In U.S. v. Pease, the court ruling resulted in the definition of the term “incapable of consenting.” The decision overturned the conviction of Mr. Montalvo’s client and set a precedent for all cases of this nature moving forward.

United States v. Zambrano (2016)- Ms. Thompson and Mr. Montalvo were appellate defense counsel. They argued the military judge committed error when he used “human lie detector” testimony in finding the client guilty. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and set aside the conviction thereby reinstating their client into the Marine Corps.

United States v. Specialist Kesha R. Conner (2014)- Specialist Kesha R. Conner was convicted on five different counts and sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge. Eric Montalvo of The Federal Practice Group was able to was able to successfully argue before ACCA on appeal that the trial court judge in the original trial abused his discretion thereby materially prejudicing the appellant’s substantial rights. Based on these findings her verdict was overturned.

U.S. v. Javier Vicente Cuevas (2014)- SSG Javier Vicente Cuevas was charged with abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. After a several-day jury trial before a military panel Eric Montalvo of The Federal Practice Group secured a full acquittal.

Captain Trey R. Sedenka v. Board for Correction of Naval Records Mr. Montalvo represented Captain Trey R. Sedenka before the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) in a case where the correction of Captain’s Sedenka’s naval record allowed him to recover the military incentive pay he was promised and was improperly denied upon his entry into the service. The Board found that an injustice had occurred and granted full relief.

U.S. v. James Bowling, Craig Allan Kolhagen, and Dennis Pennington Craig Allan Kolhagen were represented by Eric Montalvo of The Federal Practice Group in which he and two others were indicted for wire fraud, major fraud against the United States and Mr. Kolhagen was independently charged with disclosing source selection information. Through motions practice, Mr. Montalvo and his team successfully argued for a dismissal of the indictment. Mr. Kolhagen was also confronted with being administratively separated from the Marine Corps as a result of the charges. Mr. Montalvo and his team contested the administrative separation and achieved a full retention recommendation and saved Mr. Kolhagen’s retirement.

Army v. CW2: CW2 facing a Board of Inquiry for a prior General Officer Memorandum of Record successfully retained.

Army v. Captain: Captain facing a Board of Inquiry for a prior General Officer Memorandum of Record permitted to honorably retire.

Army v. Captain: Captain, who was a medical officer, faced a Board of Inquiry for substandard performance and misconduct. The officer was retained.

Marine Corps v. CWO3: CWO3 facing a Board of Inquiry for alleged misconduct related to government contracting was retained, and ultimately allowed to retire.

Naval Discharge Review Board (MD16-01367): Ms. Thompson successfully upgraded the discharge of a Marine to Honorable when it was revealed the Marine Corps had discharged him with a general under honorable in violation of the applicable regulations.


An Adjustment of Status Paved Our Client’s Way Towards Citizenship: After USCIS had denied the client an adjustment of status application and was placed in removal proceedings, Ms. Lockwood was able to obtain a stay of the proceedings to allow for adjudication of a new adjustment of status application and ultimately terminate the removal proceedings. The client is now happily on their way to becoming a US Citizen.

From Removal Proceedings to U-VISA holder: The client was placed in removal proceedings when they contacted Ms. Lockwood. Ms. Lockwood was able to obtain a U-visa based on their status as a crime victim and ultimately terminate the proceedings before the immigration court. The client is now a U-visa holder and applying for adjustment of status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident.

Winning a Citizenship Petition: After the client feared they had lost status as a lawful permanent resident and being told by multiple attorneys nothing could be done, the client sought the services of The Federal Practice Group. Ms. Lockwood was able to obtain a new lawful permanent resident card and also successfully win the client’s citizenship petition. The client was sworn in as a US Citizen on December 15, 2018.

Spouse Becomes a Lawful Permanent Resident: The client’s spouse, a national from Afghanistan, had been denied a family-based immigrant visa based on a finding of terroristic activities. Ms. Lockwood and The Federal Practice Group were able to successfully obtain a reversal of the finding of terroristic activities and obtain an approved immigrant visa. The client’s spouse is now in the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident, and after six years of marriage can finally live together in the United States.