NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM SHARKOZY,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

 Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2012-7146

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 10-4100, Judge Ronald M. Holdaway.

______________________ 

Decided: May 10, 2013 

______________________ 

 WILLIAM SHARKOZY, of Payson, Arizona, pro se. 

 GREGG PARIS YATES, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Assistant Director. Of counsel 
2 WILLIAM SHARKOZY v. SHINSEKI

on the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel, and JOSHUA P. MAYER, Attorney, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, 

DC. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, O'MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Claimant-Appellant William Sharkozy appeals the 

decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a October 29, 

2010 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). 

Sharkozy v. Shinseki, No. 10-4100, 2012 WL 1081777 

(Vet. App. Apr. 3, 2012) (“Veterans Court decision”). The 

Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision that there 

was no new and material evidence that warranted reopening Mr. Sharkozy’s claims for entitlement to service 

connection for a back disability and a left rib disability. 

We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Sharkozy served on active duty from September 

1979 to September 1982. In September 1984, he filed a 

claim for entitlement to service connection for a broken 

left rib. The VA Regional Office (“RO”) denied entitlement to service connection. Mr. Sharkozy did not appeal

that decision. 

In June 1997, Mr. Sharkozy filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for a back disability and subsequently submitted a statement asserting he injured his 

rib and back in August 1980. The RO issued a decision 

denying that claim, which Mr. Sharkozy successfully 

appealed; the Board remanded the claim for further 

development in a January 2002 decision. After further 

development of the claim the Board again denied service 

connection for residuals of a fracture of the left rib and a 
 WILLIAM SHARKOZY v. SHINSEKI 3

back disability. Mr. Sharkozy did not appeal that decision.

In August 2005, Mr. Sharkozy requested his claims 

for service connection be reopened. The RO issued a 

decision reopening the claims but denied them on the 

merits. On appeal the Board found that there was no new 

and material evidence to warrant reopening Mr. Sharkozy’s claims for service connection for a back and left rib 

disability. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s 

decision. Mr. Sharkozy filed an appeal to this court.

DISCUSSION

This court’s jurisdiction to review a decision of the 

Veterans Court is limited. We review “the validity of a 

decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any 

statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof 

(other than a determination as to a factual matter) that 

was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the 

decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). This court may not, unless 

a constitutional challenge is presented, “review (A) a 

challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to 

a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular 

case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

On appeal, Mr. Sharkozy argues that the Veterans 

Court failed to take all of his VA and service medical 

records into consideration and asserts that he was wrongly denied the use of a power scooter/chair. Mr. Sharkozy 

further disputes the appropriateness of single-judge 

summary disposition by the Veterans Court. In particular, Mr. Sharkozy disagrees that his appeal involved 

“relative simplicity” and that its “outcome [was] not 

debatable,” which are preliminary findings relevant to 

single-judge summary disposition of an appeal to the 

Veterans Court. These arguments will be addressed in 

turn. 
4 WILLIAM SHARKOZY v. SHINSEKI

First, Mr. Sharkozy challenges factual determinations 

of the Veterans Court which are beyond this court’s 

jurisdiction. See Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1372 

(Fed. Cir. 2004). Specifically, Mr. Sharkozy argues that 

he was denied his right to a fair trial because the Veterans Court did not consider his new and material evidence. 

Mr. Sharkozy’s claim does not raise a constitutional issue 

that would otherwise confer jurisdiction upon this court. 

To the extent that Mr. Sharkozy’s argument could be 

construed to mean he was deprived of due process his 

argument gains no more traction. Mr. Sharkozy was 

provided an opportunity to present new and material 

evidence, and according to the Veterans Court, he submitted all of his VA and service medical records. The Veterans Court held that he had failed to carry his burden of 

persuasion because he “fail[ed] to provide specific citation 

to any evidence of record that he considered to be new and 

material.” Veterans Court decision at *2. Accordingly, 

Mr. Sharkozy was not deprived due process, but rather 

failed to prove that his claims should be reopened upon 

the basis of new and material evidence. This court lacks 

jurisdiction over such factual determinations. 

Mr. Sharkozy asserts that the Veterans Court erred 

by failing to consider a letter written by his physician, 

dated February 2, 2011, that he incorporated with his 

reply brief in support of his Veterans Court appeal. The 

Veterans Court did not consider this letter because it was 

not part of the record before the Board. Veterans Court 

decision at *3. The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of the record that was developed before the 

RO and the Board, and therefore it is precluded from 

consideration of extra-record evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 

7252(a), (b); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 

1201, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2009) rev’d and remanded on other 

grounds sub nom Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011) (“[T]he Veterans Court reviews 

each case that comes before it on a record that is limited 
 WILLIAM SHARKOZY v. SHINSEKI 5

to the record developed before the RO and the Board.”). 

Because this determination does not include an interpretation of a statute or regulation, we lack jurisdiction to 

review Mr. Sharkozy’s contention. 

Second, Mr. Sharkozy contends that the Veterans 

Court erred because it wrongly held that he had abandoned the issue of the Board’s denial of eligibility for a 

powered mobility device. Mr. Sharkozy did not raise this 

argument in his opening brief upon appeal to the Veterans Court. Veterans Court decision at *1. Mr. Sharkozy 

argues that “there was [n]o specific [q]uestions to answer 

on this Informal Brief” about the mobility device, and that 

the argument was properly raised in his response brief. 

Appellant’s Inf. Br. at 1; App’x at 7. “[T]he Veterans 

Court is not required to consider an appellant’s argument 

that is made for the first time in a reply brief in that 

court.” Emanaker v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). Finding a waiver in an appellant’s failure to raise 

an argument in its opening brief is not an issue that falls 

within this court’s jurisdiction. See Andre v. Principi, 301 

F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Finally, Mr. Sharkozy argues that the Veterans Court 

erred in finding that his appeal involved issues of “relative simplicity” and that its “outcome [was] not debatable,” which are preliminary findings to determine if a 

matter is fit for single-judge summary disposition. Appellant’s Inf. Br. at 1. Mr. Sharkozy does not challenge the 

Veterans Court’s criteria for single-judge determinations 

as set forth in Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 23, 25-26 

(1990), but argues that his case does not satisfy those 

criteria. Because Mr. Sharkozy raises factual challenges—that is, the “relative simplicity” of his case and 

whether the outcome is “debatable”—these issue are not 

within this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Arnesen v. 

Prinicipi, 300 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 
6 WILLIAM SHARKOZY v. SHINSEKI

CONCLUSION

Having considered Mr. Sharkozy’s arguments, the issues presented do not fall within this court’s jurisdiction 

to review. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.