LETT V. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS , No. 12-7159 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-7159 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2012 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Wnlteb ~tates QCourt of §ppeals for tbe jfeberal (!CIrcuIt MELVIN LETT, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee. 2012-7159 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 10-3178, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel. ON MOTION Before LINN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Mfairs moves to dismiss this appeal as untimely. On May 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) entered judgment Case: 12-7159 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2012 2 MELVIN LETT v. SHINSEKI in Lett's case. According to the docket of the Veterans Court, the court received Lett's notice of appeal on July 16,2012,70 days after the date of judgment. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(I). The statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court is jurisdictional and thus mandatory. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1204-05 (2011) (the language of Section 7292(a) "clearly signals an intent" to impose the same jurisdictional restrictions on an appeal from the Veterans Court to the Federal Circuit as imposed on appeals from a district court to a court of appeals); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007). Because Lett's appeal as to the underlying judgment was filed outside of the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) The appeal is dismissed. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT OCT 16 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Date cc: Melvin Lett Jeremiah M. Luongo, Esq. s26 Issued As A Mandate: OCT 16 2012
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
