NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SAMUEL M. JAMES,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

 Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2012-7129

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 11-2539, Judge Alan G. Lance Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: May 9, 2013 

______________________ 

 SAMUEL M. JAMES, of King George, Virginia, pro se. 

 CORINNE A. NIOSI, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

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

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and CLAUDIA BURKE, Assistant Director. Of counsel 

on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant 
2 SAMUEL JAMES v. SHINSEKI

General Counsel, and MARTIN J. SENDEK, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, 

DC. Of counsel was MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Attorney. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Samuel M. James appeals from an order of the Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. 

James has not identified any issues within our jurisdiction, we dismiss his appeal. 

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2011, Mr. James filed a notice of appeal to the Veterans Court requesting appeal from a final 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision dated April 

12, 2011. The government responded that according to 

the Board’s appeal tracking system, there was no final 

Board decision for Mr. James on that date. It observed 

that the Roanoke Regional Office of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs had sent a letter to Senator Jim Webb 

regarding Mr. James on that date, and conjectured that it 

might be this letter that Mr. James was attempting to 

appeal. Because there was no final Board decision from 

which Mr. James could appeal, the government moved to 

dismiss.

On November 28, 2011, the Veterans Court ordered 

Mr. James to identify the decision from which he was 

appealing and to provide a copy of that decision. Mr. 

James’ response did not identify any decision subject to 

the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court 

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Subsequently, Mr. James filed a motion for reconsideration. In this motion, Mr. James argued that on April 

12, 2011, the Board denied his January 17, 2011 motion 
 SAMUEL JAMES v. SHINSEKI 3

to reconsider a March 2004 decision that declined to 

reverse a 2001 final decision. The Veterans Court denied 

the motion for reconsideration, observing that a 2011 

motion to reconsider could not toll the 120-day time to 

appeal a decision from 2004 or 2001. 

DISCUSSION

This court has jurisdiction to review the validity of a 

decision of the Veterans Court to decide “any challenge to 

the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof brought under this section, and to interpret 

constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 

7292(c). Absent a constitutional issue, however, this court 

may not review challenges to factual determinations or 

challenges to the application of a law or regulation to 

facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Mr. James identified one statute he claims was interpreted incorrectly: 10 U.S.C. § 1218. This statute deals 

with claims for compensation upon release from the 

military. But the Veterans Court’s decision did not mention or rely upon this statute, and we are therefore without jurisdiction to address it.

The Veterans Court’s decision rests solely on its factual determination that Mr. James identified no final 

decision from which he was appealing, thereby failing to 

satisfy the requirement of 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). Because 

we do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s 

factual determinations or application of the law to facts, 

we are also without jurisdiction to review the propriety of 

its decision to dismiss the case. We have considered Mr. 

James arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED