UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N OS

. 98-2219 AND 99-1164

K EI TH D. S NYD ER , A PP EL L ANT /P ETI TI ONER ,

V

. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE /R ES PO NDE NT

. P A T RI CK D. M C C REA RY , I NTER VE NOR

.

Be fore KRAMER, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. O R D E R

Be fore the Court is a motion by eac h party . On J anuar

y 1 3 , 2 0 00, the appe llant filed a motion, throug h counsel, to excee d the 25-pa g e limit for briefs tha t is set forth in Rule 32(g ) of the Court's Rules of Pra ctice a nd Procedur e (Rules). His motion wa s acc ompanied by a 43-pa g e brie f. On F e br ua ry 10 , 2 00 0, the Se c re tary

fi le d a mot ion to st ay pr oc e e din g s in thi s c a se pe nd ingthi s Court's de cision in Sc ate

s v . W e st , 13 Vet.App. 98 ( 1999), motion for en b a n c decision granted , 13 Vet.App. 304, 305 (2000) (per curiam e n banc order withdrawing panel opinion). The Sec reta ry noted in his moti on that "[that] motion was discussed with counsel for the [ appellant], who indicated that he wa s o p p o s ed to it, but t hat he wa s not inclined to submit a wr itten response at this t ime." Motion a t 3. The a

ppellant did not respond within the allotted 14 day s. See U. S. V ET

. A PP

. R. 27(a)

. On Fe b ru ar y 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e C o u rt d en i ed t h e ap p el l an t 's m o t i o n t o ex ce ed t h e Ru l e 3 2 (g) p age limit , direc ted t he C lerk of the C ourt to return the appellant' s brief, or dere d the appe llant to file a 25- pag e brie f, and he ld in abey ance the Secr etar y ' s motion t o stay

proce eding s. On Marc h 3, 2000, the appellant f

iled a motion for re consi d er at i o n of the Court' s Fe bruar y 25, 2000, order

or, in the alternative, for e n banc consideration of his motion to e x cee d the Rule 32(g ) pag e limit

. His motion
was a ccompa

nied by a 37-pa g e brie f.

I n h is m oti on

fo r r e c on sid e ratio n, the a pp e lla nt a rgue s, in ess ence, that he ha s th e ri g ht t o ra ise iss ue s th a t are imp or tant t o h is a

pp e a l and pe tit ion a nd that the Court c a nn ot lim it h is r ig ht t o raise those i ssues. He a lso asserts that, bec ause the re a re se vera l significa

nt matters at issue her e, he sh ou ld be a llo we d to exce e d the Rul e 32 (g ) p a g e lim it i n o rd e r t o a dd re ss t he m. H e fu

rt he r a sse rt s that the R ule 32(g) pag e li mit is arbitra ry and shoul d be amended to incorporate certain cha ng es that have be e n ma de to R

ule 32 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f A

pp e lla te Pr oc e du re

. I n lig ht of tho se c on c e rn s, the Court will gr ant the appe llant's motion for r econside ration. However, the Court will not amend its Februa ry 25, 2000, order

but, in view of the appellant's justifica tion for his reque st to ex cee d the2

Rule 32(g ) pag e limit (that there are signific ant matters at issue here ), will acc ept for f iling the br ief that acc ompanied his Marc h 3, 2000, motion for rec onsideration.

As to the a

pp e lla nt' s a lte rn a tiv e mot ion fo r a de c isi on by the fu ll Court , the Court no te s th a t, althoug h pursuant to Rule 35 a party may file a motion for a decision by the full Court "a fter a panel has deci ded a cas e, or .

. . aft er a pan el has den ied a mo ti on for pan el d eci si on or r econ si dera ti on ",
see U. S. V ET

. A PP

. R. 35(c) , that lang uag e a pplies to a final dec ision, not t o the re solution of a pr oc e du ral mo ti on du ring the pe nd e nc y of a c a se . Just

a s su c h in te rl oc uto ry

de c isi on s b y

sin g le judge s on proce dural motions during the cour se of a case are not the t y pes of decisions contemplated by Court Rule 35 as being subject to panel re view, se e Ba ir v . B ro wn , 6 Ve t.A pp . 6 8, 69 (1 99 3) ; cf

. Va n Cau we nb e rg

he v . B iar d , 486 U.S. 517 (1988), neither are panel decisions on such interloc utory matters subjec t to a motion for a full Court dec ision.

As t o t h e S ec re t ar y 's m o t i o n fo r a s t ay , t h e C o u rt wi l l gra n t t h at m o t i o n an d s t ay p ro ce ed i n gs in this case pending the outcome of Scates , su pr a
. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is

OR DE R E D t h at t h e ap p e l l a n t ' s M ar ch 3 , 2 0 0 0 , m o t i o n fo r r ec o n s i d er at i o n o f t h e C o u rt 's Fe bruar y 25, 2000, order

is gr anted, a

nd his brief, whic h acc ompanied that motion, is acce pted for filing a s of the date of this order. I t is further
ORDERED that the Sec re t ar y 's m otion for a stay is gr anted a

nd that this matter is stay ed pending the outcome of Scates , su pr a , o r f ur the r o rd e r o f t

he Court

. DA TE D: Ap ri l 11 , 2 00 0 PER CU RI AM

.