UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NOS. 98-2219 AND 99-1164

KEITH D. SNYDER, APPELLANT/PETITIONER,

 V.

TOGO D. WEST, JR.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE/RESPONDENT.

PATRICK D. MCCREARY, INTERVENOR.

Before KRAMER, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

Before the Court is a motion by each party. On January 13, 2000, the appellant filed a

motion, through counsel, to exceed the 25-page limit for briefs that is set forth in Rule 32(g) of the

Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). His motion was accompanied by a 43-page brief.

On February 10, 2000, the Secretary filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending this

Court's decision in Scates v. West, 13 Vet.App. 98 (1999), motion for en banc decision granted,

13 Vet.App. 304, 305 (2000) (per curiam en banc order withdrawing panel opinion). The Secretary

noted in his motion that "[that] motion was discussed with counsel for the [appellant], who indicated

that he was opposed to it, but that he was not inclined to submit a written response at this time."

Motion at 3. The appellant did not respond within the allotted 14 days. See U.S.VET.APP.R. 27(a).

On February 25, 2000, the Court denied the appellant's motion to exceed the Rule 32(g) page

limit, directed the Clerk of the Court to return the appellant's brief, ordered the appellant to file a 25-

page brief, and held in abeyance the Secretary's motion to stay proceedings. On March 3, 2000, the

appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 25, 2000, order or, in the

alternative, for en banc consideration of his motion to exceed the Rule 32(g) page limit. His motion

was accompanied by a 37-page brief.

In his motion for reconsideration, the appellant argues, in essence, that he has the right to

raise issues that are important to his appeal and petition and that the Court cannot limit his right to

raise those issues. He also asserts that, because there are several significant matters at issue here,

he should be allowed to exceed the Rule 32(g) page limit in order to address them. He further asserts

that the Rule 32(g) page limit is arbitrary and should be amended to incorporate certain changes that

have been made to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In light of those concerns,

the Court will grant the appellant's motion for reconsideration. However, the Court will not amend

its February 25, 2000, order but, in view of the appellant's justification for his request to exceed the
2

Rule 32(g) page limit (that there are significant matters at issue here), will accept for filing the brief

that accompanied his March 3, 2000, motion for reconsideration.

Asto the appellant's alternative motion for a decision by the full Court, the Court notes that,

although pursuant to Rule 35 a partymay file a motion for a decision by the full Court "after a panel

has decided a case, or . . . after a panel has denied a motion for panel decision or reconsideration",

see U.S. VET. APP. R. 35(c), that language applies to a final decision, not to the resolution of a

procedural motion during the pendency of a case. Just as such interlocutory decisions by single

judges on procedural motions during the course of a case are not the types of decisions contemplated

by Court Rule 35 as being subject to panel review, see Bair v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 68, 69 (1993); cf.

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517 (1988), neither are panel decisions on such interlocutory

matters subject to a motion for a full Court decision.

As to the Secretary's motion for a stay, the Court will grant that motion and stay proceedings

in this case pending the outcome of Scates, supra.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the appellant's March 3, 2000, motion for reconsideration of the Court's

February 25, 2000, order is granted, and his brief, which accompanied that motion, is accepted for

filing as of the date of this order. It is further

ORDERED that the Secretary's motion for a stay is granted and that this matter is stayed

pending the outcome of Scates, supra, or further order of the Court.

DATED: April 11, 2000 PER CURIAM.