credited OPM’s representations that it intended to issue a decision on Mr. Malone’s request for reconsideration, and noted that Mr. Malone had not inquired about the status of his reconsideration request before filing an appeal. This court has previously found that a sixteen-month delay did not amount to a constructive denial of a final decision. See McNeese v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 61 M.S.P.R. 70, 74 (1994), aff'd, 40 F.3d 1250 (Fed.Cir.1994). No other circumstances indicate that OPM does not intend to issue a final decision in Mr. Malone’s case. See Okello, 120 M.S.P.R. 498, 502-504 (finding that a six year pen-dency with no decision despite petitioner’s diligence in seeking a final decision was a constructive denial); Easter v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 102 M.S.P.R. 568, 571 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Malone may appeal the substantive merits
holding that one minute delay between the initial stop of the defendant and the officers question regarding whether the defendant had any illegal substances and his request to search the defendants car was sufficiently contemporaneous with the issuance of the citation such that there was no appreciable delay and certainly no unreasonable delay holding that an eighteenmonth delay with no acknowledgment of petitioners application was constructive denial holding that a twoday delay was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference and citing cases where no deliberate indifference was found after a sixteenday delay a sixday delay and a threemonth delay holding that the denial of petitioners appeal to the bia would have put a reasonable person in the petitioners position on notice that something was wrong with his attorneys preparation for the removal hearing holding no retroactive application