5 U.S.C. § 406

FBI NEW YORK FIELD DIVISION.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a) The total pay of an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation assigned to the New York Field Division before the date of September 29, 1993, in a position covered by the demonstration project conducted under section 601 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100–453) [102 Stat. 1911] shall not be reduced as a result of the termination of the demonstration project during the period that employee remains employed after that date in a position covered by the demonstration project.“(b) Beginning on September 30, 1993, any periodic payment under section 601(a)(2) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 [Pub. L. 100–453, 102 Stat. 1911] for any such employee shall be reduced by the amount of any increase in basic pay under title 5, United States Code, including the following provisions: an annual adjustment under section 5303, locality-based comparability payment under section 5304, initiation or increase in a special pay rate under section 5305, promotion under section 5334, periodic step increase under section 5335, merit increase under section 5404, or other increase to basic pay under any provision of law.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. Collins, 327 F. Supp. 3d 388 (D.R.I. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. Collins, 327 F. Supp. 3d 388 (D.R.I. 2018). “" 5 U.S.C. § 406 (a). The language of § 206(a) suggests that its implementation was committed to agency discretion by law.”

Guerra (W.D. Wash. 2026). · cites it 2× “20 at 6–8, 12–14, 16–17). In moving to dismiss claims based on this conduct, the 16 VA Defendants point to the OIG’s statutory authority for obtaining just such disclosure.”

USA v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Workers' Comp. (D. Colo. 2023). “Test 5 U.S.C. § 406 (a)(4) authorizes the SSA-OIG to seek an order from this Court requiring compliance with a subpoena issued pursuant to the IG Act.”

Faecher v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.S.C. 2024). “§ 404 (a)(1), 5 U.S.C. § 406 (a)(4). The Government attested that the subpoenaed records are relevant and indispensable to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry in order to determine whether the allegations against Plaintiff are supported and to determine whether Plaintiff is…”

Fredricks v. Council of the Inspectors Gen. of Integrity & Efficiency (\CIGIE\")" (E.D. Va. 2023). “timely access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other materials” available to their agency, 5 U.S.C. § 406 (a)(1)(A), and may “request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the[ir] duties and…”

Kransky v. United States (9th Cir. 2025). “§ 2680 (h); 5 U.S.C. §§ 406 (f)(1), (f)(3). 2 Although Kransky asserted at oral argument that additional discovery is needed on this issue, Kransky conceded that she already possessed the agents’ letter.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.