has no authority to re-examine in detail the facts surrounding a conviction or imprisonment; such matters are within the sole discretion of the appropriate (usually district) court or executive officer with the authority to reverse, set aside, or pardon a claimant’s original conviction.”); Lott v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 852, 853 (1987) (“Taken together, the statutory provisions [28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513] do not confer upon the Claims Court the power to review and overturn convictions.”). The Court of Federal Claims may hear a claim for money damages for unjust imprisonment only after a court has reversed a plaintiff’s conviction on the grounds of innocence or if the President of the United States has pardoned the plaintiff. Brown v. United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 139, 141-42 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Lott, 11 Cl.Ct. at 853 (holding that “the
holding that a defendants attempt to obstruct justice does not disappear merely because his conviction has been reversed on grounds having nothing to do with the obstruction holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court plaintiff failed to meet his burden holding that because plaintiff could not demonstrate that his conviction had been reversed or set aside on grounds of innocence plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for any potential recovery under 28 usc  1495 and 2513