NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

______________________

PER CURIAM.

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: 08/08/2022
2 GERMANY v. MCDONOUGH

On October 19, 2021, this court affirmed the judgment 

of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concerning Mr. 

Germany’s benefits claim. See Germany v. McDonough, 

No. 2021-1089, 2021 WL 4851967 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2021). 

This 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). On 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 filings would receive no response 

from the court. The Veterans Court subsequently issued 

its mandate on March 15, 2022. On May 4, 2022, Mr. Germany filed a notice of appeal at the Veterans Court, indicating his desire to appeal from the Veterans Court’s 

mandate 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 Court 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 appeal 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 Veterans 

Court’s issuance of its mandate in this matter merely carried out its earlier judgment, which was left undisturbed 

by 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: 08/08/2022
GERMANY 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,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 8, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/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