N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JEROME L. GERMANY, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1806

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19

- 6131, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Senior Judge William P. Greene

, Jr., and Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Jerome L. Germany has not responded. Case: 22-1806 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2022GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH 2

On October 19, 2021, this court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concer n ing Mr. Germany’s benefits claim

. See Germany v. McDonough

, No. 2021

- 1089, 2021 WL 4851967 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2021)

. T his court subsequently denied his petition for rehearing and issued the mandate. Following the issuance of the mandate, Mr. Germany moved for “reconsideration on

. . . denial of petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc” on December 15, 2021. Germany v. McDonough

, No. 2021

- 1089 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2021) , ECF No. 25 (capitalization omitted). O n December 16, 2021, the court informed Mr. Germany by letter that his appeal before the court was closed, that no action would be taken on his submission

, and that further related fili ngs would receive no response from the court

. T he Veterans Court subsequently issued its mandate on March 15 , 2022. On May 4, 2022, Mr. Germany filed a notice of appeal at t he Veterans Court , indicating his desire to appeal from the Veterans Court’s mand ate and this court’s handling of his request for reconsideration after the denial of rehearing in his prior appeal

. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292, not every action taken by the Veterans C ourt is appealable. Section 7292(a) provides that , in general, a party may only seek review of a decision of the Veterans Court and only with respect to the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation relied on by the court in making its decision. If an appe a l does not meet these criteria, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) requires dismissal

. See In re Bailey , 182 F.3d 860 , 870 (Fed. Cir. 1999). At bottom, Mr. Germany is attempting to relitigate his prior appeal by appealing from the Veterans Court’s entry of the mandate in the very same matter. But the VeteransCourt’s issuance of its mandate in this matter merely carried out its earlier judgm ent, which was left undisturbedby our previous decision; it was not an otherwise appealable decision. We accordingly lack jurisdiction over Mr. Germany’s current appeal. To the extent Mr. Germany challenges this court’s handling of his December 15, 2021

, Case: 22-1806 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2022GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH 3

motion in his prior appeal, this court has already informed him that his prior appeal has been closed and that no further action would be taken.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 8 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 8, 2022 Case: 22-1806 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 08/08/2022