that the Board abused its discretion when it sustained the penalty imposed by the agency because the deciding official, Mr. Anderson, failed to consider all the relevant Douglas factors. See Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 MSPB 313, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981). One Douglas factor that the agency did not consider is the consistency of the penalty with those imposed on other employees for the same or similar offense. Mr. Powe, however, did not present any evidence of penalties imposed on other employees for similar misconduct. Without such evidence, the absence of which is unsurprising given the uniqueness of Mr. Powe’s offense, neither the agency nor the Board was required to consider this factor. See Nagel v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 707 F.2d 1384, 1386-87 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Powe also argues that the agency failed
recognizing that district court is presumed absent contrary indication to have considered relevant factors when ruling on  3582c2 motion holding that only relevant factors must be considered recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible holding that there must be sufficient evidence in the record to affirmatively demonstrate the courts consideration of the relevant section 3553a factors holding counsel must only provide relevant facts of the crime