A l t h o u g h t h e m att er o n ap p ea l t o t h e F ed era l C i rcu i t w as an en ba n c d ec i sion of the C o u rt, se e Ri os v. 1 N ic h o lso n , 2 0 V e t.A p p . 1 0 4 (2 0 0 6 ), re v 'd , 4 9 0 F .3 d 9 2 8 (F e d . C ir. 20 0 7 ), o n re m a n d th is m a tter w a s a ss ig n e d by th e fu ll C o u rt t o th is p a n e l fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s. See R io s v . N ic h o lso n ,

_ _ V e t.A p p ._

_ ,_

_ , N o . 0 4 -0 3 5 4 , slip o p . at 1 (S e p t. 4 , 2 0 0 7 ). UN IT ED ST AT ES CO URT O F A PP EA LS FO R V ET ER AN S C LA IMS

N O . 04-0354 R AFAEL G. RI OS , A P P EL LA NT ,

V . G ORDO N H. M ANSFI ELD , A CT I NG S ECR ETA RY OF V ETER A N S A FF AI RS , A PP ELL EE .
O n Re m an d f

rom the U. S. Co urt

of Ap pe als fo r th e F ed era l C irc uit
(Decided November 6, 2007 )

Kathy A. Lieberman, of W ashington, D.C., and Shelley I . Stiles, of Br entw oo d, Te nn ess ee, we re o n b rie f f

or t he ap pe llant. Ti m S . Mc Cl ain , G en era l C ouns el; R. Ra nd all Ca mp be ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Ga br iel le L . C

lem on s (non-att orney pract itioner ) all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the ap pe lle e. Robert V. Chisholm, of

Pr ovide nc e, Rh od e Is lan d, wa s o n th e b rie f f or t he Natio na l Organizati on of Veterans' Advocates as amicus curiae. Before GREEN E, Chief Judge, and KASOLD , and HAGEL Ju dges . KASOLD , Judge : In Rios v. Nicholson, 49 0 F .3 d 92 8, 931 -32 (Fed . Ci r. 2 00 7), the Fe de ral Circuit hel d that the c omm on law mailbox ru le app li es to the filing of a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with this Court , and remanded this matter for applica ti ont hereof. For the reas ons stated be low, 1
we fi nd that Mr . Rios ha s ti m ely

fi led his NO A and

that the C ourt ha s jur isd ict ion to hear hi s ap pe al. The Secretary will be directe d to file t he desi gnation of the record on appeal not laterthan 60 days after the dat e of this opinion.2 I. DI SC US SI ON A. Th e C om

m on Law M ailbo x R

ule The comm on law mailbox rule has bee n in existence for well over a century, seeH ow ar d v

. Da ly , 6 1 N .Y . 3 62 (18 75 ); Hu ntley v . Wh itt ier , 1 05 Mas s. 39 1 (1 87 0); Ta nn er v . H ug hes , 53 Penn. St . 2 89 (18 67 ); Ca lla n v . Gay lor d, 3 W atts 321 (Pa. 1834) , and was given full judi cial imprimatur by the U.S. Supreme Court over 120 years ago, in Ro sen tha l v . Wa lke r , 11 1 U. S. 185 (18 84 ). Und er the co mm on

lawm ailbo x ru le, "if

a le tte r pr op erl y d ire cte d is pro ve d to have been ei ther put into the post office or del ivered to t he postman, it is presumed, from the known course of business in the post office department, that i t reached i ts desti nation at t he regulartime, and was re ce iv ed by the pe rso n to who m

it w as a dd

res sed ." Rosenthal , 1 11 U. S. at 1 93 ; seeals o H ag ne r v. Un ite d S

tates , 28 5 U .S . 4 27 , 4 30 (19 32 ); Le wi s v. Un ite d S

tates , 1 44 F. 3d

12 20 , 1222 (9 th C ir. 19 98 ); Woo d v

. Co mm 'r , 9 09 F. 2d

11 55 , 11 61 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). T his m ailbo x ru le i s b ase d o n th e p res um pti on that the officers of the government will do thei r duty in the normal course of business. See Rosenthal , su pra ; seeals o U

nited Sta tes v. Armstrong , 5 17 U.S. 456, 46 4 (1 99 6) ( "' [I ]n the ab sen ce o f c lear ev ide nc e to the c ontrary, c ourts p res um e that [ Go ve rnm ent a ge nts ] have p rop erl y dis ch arg ed the ir of fi cia l dutie s. ' "); Un ite d S

tates v . Chem. Found. , Inc

. , 272 U.S. 1, 14- 15 (1926) (" The presumption of regularit y supports the official acts of public officers and, i n the absence of clearevidence to t he contrary, c ourts pres ume that they have properl y discharged t heir official dut ies."). Th e p res um

pti on of rec eip t pe rm itted under

the co mm on

lawm ailbo x ru le i s n ot i nv ok ed lightly. See Sorrentino v. IRS, 383 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2004) ( applying a strict st andard of pro of be fo re i nvok inga p res um pti on of rec eip t). It r eq

uir es p roo f o f m ail ing , s uc h a s an independent pr oof of a postm ark, a dated receipt , or evidence of mailing apartfrom a party's own self-servi ng testimony. Id. at 11 95 (i nv ok ingth e m ailbo x rul e' s pre sum pti on o f receipt requires ind ep en de nt p roo f o f a po stm ark or ev ide nc e o the r th anthe taxpaye r' s se lf -se rvi ngtes tim ony a s to actual mailing). T he i nd ep en dent pr oof of a postm ark may be in the form of business re cords establi shing the mailing, evide nce of a course of business regardi ng m ailing, or third part y testimony wi tne ssi ngth e m ailing. Se e Knickerbocker Li fe Ins. v. Pendl eton , 115 U.S. 339, 347 (1885) (adopting the rule tha t "all ows usage and th e co ur se o f business t o be shown for the purpose of rai sin g a prim a f aci e p res um

pti on of fa ct i n a id o f c oll ate ral tes tim ony") ; An de rso n v . U nited Sta tes, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992) ( allowing extr insic evi dence of taxpayer's test imony that she3

watch ed the po sta l cl erk

stam p h er d oc um ent an d a ff

idavit o f f rie nd acc om pany inghe r to the po st of fi ce t o p rov ide pro of

of po stm ark to s ho w a tim ely m ail ing ); Es tate of Wo od v. Co mm 'r, 909 F.2d 1155, 1681 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding proof of postmark from the test imony of

the attorney prepari ng estate r eturn, who watched p os tmi st re ss stamp the document and from the test imony of

the po stm istres s th at s he stam pe d th e d oc um ent); Vill. of Kiryas Joel Local Dev. Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 9 96 F. 2d

13 90 , 1 39 4 (2 d C ir. 19 93 ) (f ind ingsu ff

ici ent to c reate p res um

pti on of rec eip t an
em plo ye e' s st ate m ent of

cu sto m ary

of fi ce p roc ed

ure plu s re co rd i nd icatin g th at em plo ye e m ail ed letter); Go dfrey v . U

nited Sta tes , 997 F. 2d3 35 , 338 (7th Cir. 1993) ( finding that to i nvoke the pre sum pti on of de liv ery , a

partymay "ei the r pre sent evi de nc e of actu al m ail ing , s uc h a s an af fi davit fr om the e m plo ye e wh o m ail ed

th e [t axre tur

n] o r p res ent p roo f of

p roc ed ure s fo llo we d in the regular co urs e o f o pe rat ion s whic h giv e ris e to a str on g inf ere nc e that t

he [ ret urn ] wa s pro pe rlyad dre sse d
an d m ail ed "); Mye rs v . Mo ore-K ile , 279 F. 233, 235 (5th Cir. 1922) (using evi dence that adocument was mailed in the regula r course of busines s as proof that i t was actual ly mailed). B. Application In this i ns tan ce, M r. Ri os p res ents to the C ourt a co pyo f his N ov em be r 6 , 20 03 , NOA, a copy of a "Page of Registry of Sent Corre spondence" from the Puerto Rico Public Advocate for Ve ter an s A ff

air s (P RP AVA) , and

tw o a ff idavit s f rom Mrs . S anta Vi rge n C ruzCarri on , an e m plo ye e of the PRPAVA , attest ing to the mailing proc edures at t he PRPAVA. In the affidavit, Mr s. Cruz Carrion descr ibes the normal m ailing pr ocedure of the PRPAVA and asserts thaton the afternoon of Novem ber 6, 2003, she followed those procedures when mailing Mr . Rios' NOAto the Court and
a co pyof it t o th e O ff

ice of the VAGe ne ral Co un sel . M rs. Cr uzCarri on

att est s th at o n N ov em

be r 6, 20 03 , s he pe rso na llym ail ed Mr. Ri os ' NO A b y p lac ingit in a U.S . m ailbo x and su bs eq ue ntl y log ge d th e m ail ingof

thi s d oc um ent on

the Pa ge of

Re gis tryof

Se nt C orr esp on de nc e; a

co pyof thi s document contains a log of a mailing to the Court on behalf of M r. Rios on the submitted re gistry. In a dd iti on

to s en din g the N OAto th e Co urt , Mrs

. Cr uzC arr ion

s tat es that a

c op y o f t he NO A w as also sent to t he Office of the VA General Counsel; this too i s note d on the Page of Registry of Sent Co rre sp on de nc e. Th e m ail ingad dre ss o n th e co pyof the No ve m

be r 6 N OAis th e co rre ct a dd res s for this Court. In a ddition to the evidence of mailing subm itted by Mr. Rios, he timely followed up his mailing with an inqui ry in February 2004 regarding t he status of his NOA.D uri ng oral argum ent, t he Se cret ary al so no t ed t hat t he P R PA V A has m ai l ed an N O A t o t he w r on g ad dress 2 i n t he pa st as w as done i n t he c as e Sant ana- Venegas v. Pri nci pi , 314 F. 3d 1293 ( Fed. C i r . 2002)

. N ot onl y i s t hi s f act i nap po si t e t o t hi s case, w here t here i s no ev i den ce an d on l y a sug gesti on t hat t he N O A w as m ai l ed t o t he w r on g ad dress, i n Sant ana- Venegas , t he N O A w as f i l ed w i t h t he V A r egi onal of f i ce f r om w hi ch t he cl ai m or i gi nat ed a nd t he Fede r al C i r cui t hel d t hat equi t abl e t ol l i ng w as f or appl i cat i on. 4 Un de r th ese cir cum stanc es, we fi nd that Mr . Rios ha s est ab lis he d that his NO A w as m ail ed wi th t he Un ite d S tat es P os tal Se rvi ce ( US PS ) on No ve m be r 6, 200 3. W e als o tak e ju dic ial no tic e that the USPS normal delivery time for mail from Puerto Rico to the Court i s three days , see Un ite d S tate s P o s ta l S e rv ic e , P o s ta g e R ate C a lc u lato r, h tt p :/ /p o s tc a lc

. u s p s . g o v/M a il S e rv ic e s . a s p x ?M =0 &P =0 &O =1 &O Z= 00 91 0&D Z= 20 00 4 (l ast visi ted No v. 1, 20 07 ); seeals o S mi th ( Brad y) v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 235, 238 (1991) ("Court s may take judi cia l notice of fac ts no t su bje ct t o rea so na ble d isp ute ." (ci tin g F ED . R. E V ID . 2 01 (b) )). Th is c reates a p res um pti on that th e C ourt received M r. Rios' NOA on N ovember 9, 2003, well before the end of the 120-day fili ng period, which was February 13, 2004. See Rosenthal , 11 1 U .S . at 19 3 (r ece ipt is p res um ed

"at the regular time"). Th e on ly evidence to reb ut the pre sum pti on of rec eip t is the fa ct that the NO A wa s n ev er logged in by the Court , however, this i s ins ufficient t o rebutthe pr esumption of delivery under the 2
comm on law mailbox rule. See Barnet t v. Okeechobee Hosp. , 283 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2002) ("[ A] party ' s f

ail ure to unc ov er anit em , wh ich it w as p res um ed

to h av e re cei ve d, do es n ot m ean that it n ev er r ece ive d th e it em an d d oe s not rebut the pre sum pti on of de liv ery .") ; Arnold v. Wood , 23 8 F .3 d 9 92 , 9 95 (8t

h C ir. 20 01 ) (statin g th at t he pre sum

pti on of acc ura cyin f

av or o f d oc ke t
entri es m aybe reb utt ed

on ly b y a

str on ge r pr esum

pti on su chas t he "m ailbo x ru le" ); In re Ni mz Transp., Inc ., 505 F.2d 177, 179 (7th Cir. 1974) ( holding, in a case where petitioner s alleged mailing wage claims to the cle rk of distri ct c ourt, that "the fact tha t the cl erk's files did notcontain the proof of cla im s" w as " byits elf

insu ff ici ent to reb ut th e pre sum pti on of rec eip t") ; Jo nes v. Un ite d S tates , 22 6 F .2 d 2 4, 27 (9t

h C ir. 19 55 ) (" Th e sh ow ingthat a search o f the p ert ine nt fi les in

th e [ ad dre sse e' s] office revealed no re cord of the [relevantdocuments] having been filed is ap ur ely ne gative cir cum stanc e, ins uf

fi cie nt .
. . to r eb ut t

he pre sum

pti on of de liv ery .") ; see also Tavares v. Principi , 18 Ve t.A pp . 1 31 , 1 41 n. 1 (K aso ld, J. , d iss entin g) ("D oc um ents ge t l os t i n the m ail and e ve n los t at this Court." (citi ng Evans v. Principi , 1 7 V et. Ap p. 41 , 4 2 (2 00 3)) ).5 II. CO NC LU SI ON Based upon the foregoing anal ysis and evi dence, t he Court holds that M r. Rios filed hi s NOA by mailing it wi th t he US PS such that the NOA should have bee n received by t he Court in the
no rm al c ourse of busi ne ss w ell wi thi n th e 1 20 -day f ili ngpe rio d. Th e co mm on lawm ailbo x ru le creates a pre sumption that this NOA was so received, and tha t pr esumption has not been rebut ted. Accordingly, the NOA i n thi s cas e was timely filed in accorda nce with 38 U.S.C. § 7266, and the Court has juri sdiction t o review Mr. Rios' appeal. The Sec retary i s direct ed to file the de signation of the record on appea l not lat er than 60 days a fter the date of this opinion.