Full Opinion

Case: 26-1222 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEOPOLD ROMAN BRANDENBURG, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1222 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01540-MHS, Chief Judge Matthew H. Sol- omson. ______________________ Decided: November 5, 2026 ______________________ LEOPOLD ROMAN BRANDENBURG, SR., Lauderhill, FL, pro se. REBECCA TAYLOR MITCHELL, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Case: 26-1222 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2026 2 BRANDENBURG v. US Before LOURIE, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Mr. Leopold Roman Brandenburg, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals a Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) de- cision dismissing his complaint seeking waiver of a salary overpayment debt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5584. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Brandenburg was an employee of the Department of State (“Department”) for about three years, ending on August 3, 2013. Mr. Brandenburg was then reassigned to the Social Security Administration at a lower pay grade. After separation from the Department, Mr. Brandenburg mistakenly was paid his Department salary for another year in the amount of $103,321. In 2015, the Department notified Mr. Brandenburg that he had been overpaid. Mr. Brandenburg sought a waiver of the overpayment debt under 5 U.S.C. § 5584, stating that collection of the debt would create hardship for him as the sole caretaker for three children and an elderly parent. Section 5584 provides that a “claim of the United States against a person arising out of an erroneous pay- ment of pay or allowances . . . , the collection of which would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States, may be waived in whole or in part by” an authorized official. 5 U.S.C. § 5584(a). The Department informed Mr. Brandenburg on March 28, 2019, that he was ineligible for a waiver and that he was required to repay the $103,321 that he had received. Mr. Brandenburg filed a complaint at the Claims Court, again seeking a waiver of his debt under § 5584 and reimbursement of unspecified “amounts already paid to the Case: 26-1222 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2026 BRANDENBURG v. US 3 State Department.” S. App’x 16–20. 1 The Claims Court determined that, to the extent Mr. Brandenburg sought cancellation of debts not yet collected, it was without juris- diction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 to entertain the claim. To the extent Mr. Brandenburg sought reim- bursement of funds already repaid, the Claims Court de- termined that it lacked Tucker Act jurisdiction because section 5584 is not a money-mandating statute. The Claims Court accordingly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Liberally construing Mr. Brandenburg’s request for “reim- bursement of any and all amounts already paid” as claim- ing an illegal exaction, the Claims Court dismissed the illegal exaction claim as insufficient under Claims Court Rule 12(b)(6). Mr. Brandenburg timely appeals. 2 We have jurisdic- tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 3 DISCUSSION I We first consider whether the Claims Court had juris- diction to hear Mr. Brandenburg’s claim for a waiver of 1 Citations to “S. App’x” refer to the Supplemental Appendix filed by the appellee. Dkt. No. 6. 2 Mr. Brandenburg filed a motion to waive the page limit as to his Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument. Dkt. No. 27. This motion is granted. 3 Mr. Brandenburg also brought a district-court ac- tion under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge the denial of a waiver. See Brandenburg v. Blinken, No. 22-2120, 2023 WL 4450139, at *6 (D.D.C. July 11, 2023) (concluding that Mr. Brandenburg “failed to state a claim that the denial of his waiver request was arbitrary or capricious”). The D.C. Circuit affirmed. Brandenburg v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 23-5295, 2024 WL 2152116 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2024). Case: 26-1222 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2026 4 BRANDENBURG v. US debt under 5 U.S.C. § 5584. We review de novo the Claims Court’s determination of its jurisdiction. Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Mr. Brandenburg’s focus is on “reimbursement of money already collected by the government.” Appellant’s Br. 4, Dkt. No. 5-2. But even as a request for reimburse- ment of amounts paid, Mr. Brandenburg’s claim is outside the Claims Court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction. The Claims Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction only over claims deriving from a money-mandating source of law. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 995–96 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A source of law is money mandat- ing if it “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensa- tion by the Federal Government for the damages sustained.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216– 17 (1983) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “A statute is not money-mandating when it gives the govern- ment complete discretion over the decision whether or not to pay an individual or group.” Doe v. United States, 463 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “When a provision uses discretionary language, a very strong, but rebuttable, presumption arises that the . . . provision is not money- mandating.” Bell v. United States, 20 F.4th 768, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (omission in original) (quotation omitted). For example, a statute permitting payments “if the Secre- tary determines that it is in the interests of fairness and equity” is not money-mandating. Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 37 U.S.C. § 204(i)(2)). Here, the statute provides only that a debt owed to the United States “may be waived in whole or in part by” an authorized official. 5 U.S.C. § 5584(a) (empha- sis added). The word “may” is presumed to be discretionary unless the “structure and purpose of the statute at hand” suggest otherwise. McBryde v. United States, 299 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Case: 26-1222 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 11/05/2026 BRANDENBURG v. US 5 Section 5584 is not a money-mandating source of law, and the Claims Court did not err in dismissing Mr. Bran- denburg’s claim based on that statute for lack of jurisdic- tion. II Mr. Brandenburg alternatively argues that his com- plaint states a claim for illegal exaction. To succeed on an illegal-exaction claim, a claimant must show that money “was improperly paid, exacted, or taken from the claimant in contravention of the Constitution, a statute, or a regula- tion.” Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotations omit- ted). To survive dismissal, a claimant must plead “suffi- cient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Oliva v. United States, 961 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (omission in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Mr. Brandenburg’s complaint did not contest the fact that he was paid for a year that he did not work for the Department. He pled only that he was not “at fault” for the overpayment and should thus be eligible for a waiver under section 5584. S. App’x 16. This is not a claim that the gov- ernment unlawfully exacted money from Mr. Branden- burg. Because Mr. Brandenburg did not plausibly allege that the collection of his overpayment debt violates the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation, he does not state a claim for illegal exaction. The Claims Court did not err in dismissing the illegal-exaction claim. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Brandenburg’s remaining ar- guments and find them unpersuasive. We affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.