UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 05-45
W I L L I AM E. M C C R EA R Y , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
. On Appellant' s Motion for Reconsider ation
(De cided June 5, 2006 )

Jeffrey A. Lamken , D. Kirk Morgan II , and Simon E. Steve ns , all of Washington, D.C. , wer e on the ple a din g fo r t

he a pp e lla nt.
T im S. Mc Cla in , G e n e r a l C o un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ri c ha rd Maye rick, Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Gabrielle L. Clemons (non-attorney prac titioner) , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the pleadingfor the a ppellee.
Be fore GREENE , Chief Judge , and L ANCE and SCHOEL EN, Judge s. SCHOEL EN, Judge : The appe llant seeks re view of a n August 30, 2004, d ec i s i o n of the B oa rd of Ve te ra

ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ). In a Se pte mbe r 2 , 2 00 5, op ini on , th e Court dis mis se d th is appea l, holding that the a ppellant had not filed his Notice of Appe al (NOA ) within 120 da y s after the date the B oa

rd ma ile d it s d e c isi on , n or

ha d h e met a thre e -p art

te st t o e sta

bli shthat e qu ita

ble tolling of the 120-day

judicial-appe al per iod was appr opriate. McCreary v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 324 (2005). Subseque ntly , the appe llant, throug h counsel, filed a ti mely motion for rec onsideration. I n r e sp on se to a

Court or de r, the a

pp e lla nt a lso fi le d a

su pp le me nta l me mor and

um a nd an a ff ida vit in support of his motion for rec onsideration. The Secre tary filed a r esponse to the a

ppellant' s motion fo r r e c on sid e ratio n a

nd hi s supp le me nta l me mor and um. B e c a

us e of a c ha ng e in t he fa c tua l ba sis underlying our

prior dec ision, we g rant t h e ap p el lant' s motion for rec onsideration. See A shleyT h i s opi n i on s u ppl eme n t s t h e Cour t ' s Se pt embe r 2, 2005, opi n i on , w h i ch r ema i n s ot h er wi s e u n di s t u r bed. 1 2 v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 307, 308 (1992). How ever , afte r re consideration, we ag ain conc lude that

e qu ita ble tol lin g is n ot w arr ante d in thi s c a se and

we wi ll d ism iss thi s a

pp e a l. 1

I. BACKG ROUND The orig inal opinion in thi s case sets forth the fac tual and proce dural background of this case , which we summarize br iefly here

. Se e Mc Cre ar

y , 1 9 V e t.A

pp . at 32 6- 27 . T he a

pp e lla nt f ile d h is NOA with the Court on January 4, 2005, 127 day s after

the date stamped on the B oard de cision. He acknow ledg ed that his appe al was untimely in a si g ned, sworn statement accompany ing his NO A. I n that statement, he attributed his untim ely appea l to damag e to his house as a result of Hur

rica ne I van, which, on September 16, 2004, struck the Alabama coast near where his house i s located. Id. at 3 2 7 ( ta k in g ju d ic ia l n o ti c e o f

in f o r mati o nr e g ar d in g H ur

r ic an e I v an )

. H e s tate d

th a t h is p aper s
re late d to his a

pp e a l w e re sto re d in

bo xes th at were "m isp la c e d" wh ile he a tte mpt e d to re pa ir his house and to r eac h a settlement with his insurance c ompany
. Id. at 326-27. In response to an orde r from the Court askingthe appe llant to show cause why his appea l s h o u l d not be dismissed, the

a pp e lla nt s ub mitte d a

ne arl y ide nti c a l st a te me nt. I n the September

2, 2005, opinion, t h e C ourt dismissed this appea l. Ba sed on a r eview of other Fede ral court decisions, we deter mined that extraordinary

circ umstances c ould be the basis for equitable tolling of the 120-day judicial-appe al per iod under 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a)

. Id. a t 3 2 8

- 3 2

. We adopted a three -par

t test to determine when equitable tolling base d on extraordinary circ umstances is justi fied: First, the e x traord in a

r y c ircumstance must be beyond the appe llant's c ontrol. Second, the ap p el l ant must demonstrate that the untimely filing w as a dire ct re sult of the e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s. Th ir d, the a pp e lla nt m us t e xer c ise " du e dil ig e nc e " in prese rving his appellate r ight s, meaningthat a re asonably diligent a

ppellant, under the same c ircumstance s, would not ha ve filed his a

ppeal within the 120-day

judicial appea l period. Id. at 332 (c itations omi tted). Howe ver, in a pplying this test to the cir cu m s t ances and e vidence prese nted by

the appe llant at the time, we det er m i n ed that equitable tolling w as not war rante d becaus e h i s u n timely

filing of his NOA wa s not a direc t result of Hurr icane I van and be cause the3

e vid e nc e did

no t de mon str a te that he ha d e xer c ise d du e dil ig e nc e in pr e se rv ing his a pp e llate ri g hts

. Id. at 332-34. T h e C o u rt gra n t edt h e V et er an s C o n s o rt i u mP ro Bo n o P ro gra ma s t ay o f p ro ce ed i n gs pursuant to Rule 5(a) (1)( B) of the Court' s Rules of Practice and Proce dure ( Rules) so that the thenpro se a ppellant might obtain c ounsel. Counsel for the a ppellant enter ed an a

ppear ance and filed a mot ion fo r re c on sid e ratio n pur su ant to Ru le 35 . B e c a us e c ouns e l f

or the a pp e lla nt h a d li mit e d ti me to con s u l t wi t h t h e appellant, the Court g rante d the appe llant leave to f ile an ame nded motion for

rec onsideration. He did so on Dece mber 5, 2005. As g ro un ds fo r r e c on sid e ratio n, the a pp e lla nt ar g ue s that he d id n ot h ave the op po rt un ity to show that he is en t i t l ed t o equitable tolling unde r the standa rd first ar ticulated in Mc Cre ar

y . He

ar g u e s th a t, in

p r io r in s ta n c e s w h e r e th e U

. S. Co urt o f Ap p e a ls f

o r th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it

(F eder al Circuit) h as articulated a ne w basis for e quitable tolling, this Court has provided a ppellants the

o p p o rt u n i t y

to submit evidenc e in support of their a rguments for e quitable tolling. S e e, e
. g ., Claiborne v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 181, 182 ( 2005), aff' d per curiam , N o
. 0 5

- 7 1 7 0 , 2 0 0 6 WL 701948 (F ed. Cir. Mar. 14, 200 6 ). I n h i s motion for rec onsideration, the a ppellant made g ener al

asser tions of the ty

pe of e vidence he would submit to support his argument for e quitable tolling, but he did not submit any

evidenc e. I n l ight of

the appe llant's f

ailure to submit any

evidenc e ac company

ing his motion for

rec onsideration, o n Dec ember 13, 2005, the Court order ed the a ppellant to file a suppleme ntal memorandum, with suppor ting evidenc e, in support of his motion for re consideration. The Court also order ed the Sec reta ry to respond to the moti on for r econside ration, the supplementa l memorandum of la

w, and a ny additional evidenc e submitted by the appe llant. SeeU. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 3 5( g ) ( statin g that th e Court wi ll not or din ari ly g ra nt r e c on sid e ra

tio n w ith out se e kin g a

re sp on se to the motion). I n response to the Court's order, on J anuar y 11, 2006, the appellant submitt ed a supple mental memorandum of la

w in support of his motion for reco n s i d er at i on and attac hed his supporting aff idavit. I n his supplemental memorandum, he argues that he me t eac h of the thre e par ts of the Mc Cre ar yte st. Re g ard ingwh e the r H ur ri c ane I va n w a s a n e xtra or din ary

c ir c ums tanc e be y on d h is control, he a sserts that, in the September 2, 2005 opinion, the Court a lrea dy found that to be the ca se.4

Se e Mc Cre ar

y , 19 Vet.A p p
. at 3 3 2 (stating that "it is obvious that a hurric ane is a ty pe of extraordinary

circ umstance that is bey ond the appe llant's c ontrol")

. Wit h respe ct to t h e s ec o n d element of the Mc Cre ar

yte st, the a

pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t hi s
un tim e ly fi lin g of his NO A w a s a

dir e c t re su lt of Hurr ic ane I va n. He re fe rs to h is p ri or

state me nt, in which he state d that he had " misplaced" his papers r elated to the appea l. See id. at 326. He

a t t e mp t s t o c l ar i f

y h i s p r i o r s t a t e m e n tb y

a s s e r t i n g t h a tt h e hur

r i c an e d am a g e w a s p art i c ularl y exte n s i v e i nt h e r o o mco n t ai n i n g h i s p ap er s
. Ap p el l an t 's S u p p l em en t al M em o randum (Suppl. M em.) at 4; Affid av it o f Wi ll ia

m E

. M c Cr e ar

y ( M c Cr e ar

y A f f

. ) ¶ 4 , 7

. H e a s s e rts th a t b e c a u s e o f the lik e lih oo d o f i mmi ne nt w a te r a nd mol d d ama g e , h e and

his fa mil y hurr ie dly pa c ke d h is p a

pe rs int o box es, but he doe s not specifica lly rec all placing his pa

pers into a

ny of the box es. McCre ary Aff. ¶ 4. He states that from the time of the hurrica ne until he found his paper s on Dec ember 31, 2004, wh ile loo kin g fo r s omethi ng e lse , h e ha d n ot t ho ug ht a bo ut t he pa pe rs re late d to his a

pp e a l. Mc Cr e ary Af f. ¶ 9 . T he a

pp e lla nt a rgue s that the los s of his pa pe rs re late d to his ap pe a l wa s a dir e c t, imm ine nt, and

fo re se e a ble re sp on se to t

he hurr ic ane . Su

pp l. Me m. at 4- 5. He sp e c if ic a lly state s h is belief that "[b]ut for Hur

rica ne Ivan, I have no d o u b t t h at Iwould have f iled my appea l paper s on time." Mc Crear

y Aff. ¶ 11. Concerningthe third eleme nt of the Mc Cre ar y test, the appellant argues that he ha s exercised the due diligenc e require d by the Court. He maintains that, while try ing to support his family , he wa s require d to live without power for weeks, to undertake ex pensive repairs to his house on his own, and to fig ht proce dural hurdle s with his ins uranc e co m p an y . Suppl. Mem. at 5-6; McCrea ry Aff. ¶ 3-8. He e xp la in s th a t h e h a d to ma k e r e p a ir s to h is h o u s e w h il e s p e n d in g 1 2 h o ur s e a c hd ay workingand commuting . McCrea ry Aff. ¶ 6. He al s o s t re s ses that his box ed pape rs had to be

mov e d imme diate ly

fr om a he avil y dama g e d p or

tio n o f his ho us e wh ile he re pa ir e d it, " makin g the ir discovery and re trieval diff

icult if not imposs ible." Suppl. Mem. at 6. T h e ap p el lant also cites extensions of t ime g rante d by other Government age ncies a s a re sult of Hurrica ne Ivan. Id. at 6-7 (citing extensions gra

nted by (1) the I nterna l Revenue Ser

vice f or filing quar t erly

tax returns and pa y me nts fr om S e pte mbe r 1 5, 20 04 , unti l D e c e mbe r 3 0, 20 04 ; ( 2) the Pe ns ion Benefi t Gua ra nty Corporation for

cer tain deadlines until Dec ember 30, 2004; an d (3 ) t h e Department of L abor f orSee In te rn a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e , I RS Gr a n ts T

a x R e l i e f f o r Hu r r i c a n e I

v a n V i c t i ms (S e p t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 ), a v a ila b le 2 at http :/ /w w w .irs.g o v /p u b /irs-ne w s/ir-0 4 -1 1 8 .p d f; P e n sio n B e n e fit G u a ra n ty C o rp o ra tio n , D isa ste r R e lief R e la tin g to PB G C D eadl i nes i n Res pons e t o H ur r i cane I

van i n Al abam a, Fl or i da, Loui s i ana, and M i s si ss i ppi (O ct

. 13 , 20 0 4 ), avai l abl e a t http : / / www . p b gc. go v/ p ract i t i o ners / l aw- regula tio n s-info rm a l-gu id a n c e /d isa ste r-re liefa n n o u n c e m e n ts/d r1 1 8 9 .h tm l; U .S . D e p a rtm e n t o f L a b o r, E m p lo ye e B e n e fit s S e c u rity A d m inistra tio n , U

. S. Labor D ep a rt m en t E xten d s A n n u a l R ep o rtD ea d l i n es A f t er H u rri ca n e Iv a n H i ts G u l f C o a st(S e p t. 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 ), avai l ab l e at h ttp :// w w w .d o l.go v /e b sa /ne w sr o o m /p r0 9 3 0 a 0 4 .htm l. 5 filing c erta in forms and re ports until Decembe r 30, 2004). Finally , the appe llant also argues that 2 he demonstrated due diligenc e by immediately contac ting his represe ntative af ter findingthe pape rs
on De c e mbe r 3 0, 20 04 , a

nd , o n th e fi rs t da

y his re pr e se ntativ e wa s ava ila ble , me e tin g wi th h im i n order to file his NOA. McCre ary Aff. ¶ 10. On Fe bruar

y 24, 2006, the Secr etar y fi led a r esponse to the a ppellant' s motion for

rec onsid e r a ti o n an d s u

p p le me n ta l me mo r an d

u m o f la w . In h is r e s p o n s e , th e Se c r e ta r y d id not express a position on the adequa cy of the a ppellant' s submissi ons under the Mc Cre ar yte st. Howeve r, the Sec reta

ry raised the issue of t he adequac y of t he appellant' s motion for r econside ration

un de r t he Court ' s Ru le s. We t

ur n to that thre sh old

iss ue fi rs t.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Motion for Reconside ration Rul e 35 (e )( 1) of

the Court ' s Ru le s r e qu ir e s that motio ns fo r re c on sid e ratio n "s tate the po int s of law o r fa ct t h at the par ty believes the Court has overlooke d or misunderstood." The Sec reta ry
asser ts tha t , ra t h er than ar

ticulating a

point of law or f

act that the Court ha s misunderstood, the appellant is mere ly

attempting to pr esent a dditional facts for the Cou rt' s initi al consider ation. Howeve r, we are satisfied that t he appellant has sufficiently articulated a point of fact t hat the Court ha s mi sund e rs too d. Spe c if ic a lly , th e a

pp e lla nt ' s s u p p l e m e nt a l m e m o r a

n d u m i d e nt i f i e s h i s a d m i tte dly inartful use of the term "misplac ed" in his prior statement and the Court' s interpre tation of that word. Sup pl. Me m. a

t 3 n .1 , 3 -4 ; se e Mc Cre ar y , 19 Vet.App. at 333. Thus, we ar e satisfied that the appellant' s motion for rec onsideration mee ts the criter ia set for th in Rul e 35. I n li g ht o f t

he a pp e lla nt' s ad dit ion a l su

bmi ssi on s and

in t he int e re st o f a

fu ll a nd fa ir

c on sid e ratio n o f t

he a pp e lla nt' s e qu ita ble tol lin g re qu e st, inc lud ing a sse ssm e nt of a ll re le va nt f a c ts, the Court will gr ant the appe llant's motion for re co n s i d er ati on. See A shley , 2 Vet.App. at 3086

(g rantingrec onsideration base d on a " marke d chang e in the fa ct u al predicate" ). We now proc eed to re ev al u ate whe ther e quitable tolling is appropr iate and to c onsider the a dditional evidence the appellant ha s submitt ed. B. A pplicable L aw Neither party challeng ed the a

rticulation of the a

pplicable law reg arding equitable tolling or the thr e e -p art

te st t o dete rm in e wh e the r e qu ita ble tol lin g ba se d o n e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s is appropr iate. Se e Mc Cre ar y , su pra . T hu s, the Court

wi ll n ot r e pe a t th e un de rl yingana ly sis and wi ll apply the three -par

t test articulated in Mc Cre ar yto determine whether

equitable tolling is wa

rra nted in this ca se. See id. , 19 Vet.App. at 332. We repe at seve ral princ iples from our pr ior opinion that

are rele vant in this case. First, the appe llant has the oblig ation "to pr oduce a ny evidenc e supporting hi s cl aim for

equ it abl e to ll in g." Id. Second, the bur den for filing a n NOA in this Court is low. Id.

a t 33 3. F ina lly , a

n " a pp e lla nt w ou ld n ot b e ine lig ibl e fo r e qu ita ble tol lin g be c a

us e he wa ite d unti l th e endof t he j ud ici al- app eal peri odto fi le a n NO A." Id. at 334. Howe ver, in our prior opinion we favor abl y cited a c ase f

rom the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, which re quired that

"' the par ty seeking equitable tolling must have acte d with r easona ble diligenc e throug hout the period he s eeks to to ll .'" Id. at 3 3 1 (q u o t i n g Sm ith v . M c Gi nn is , 208 F.3d 13, 17 ( 2d Cir. 2000)). C. A pp lic a tio n o f E qu ita

ble To lli ngSta

nd ard to T his Ca se As befor e, we find that a hurr icane is an ex t ra ordinary circ umstance that is bey ond the appellant' s control. Id. at 332. Thus, we ne ed only consider whether h i s untimely appea l was the dir e c t r e su lt o f H ur

ri c ane I va

n a nd wh e the r h e e xer cis e d d

ue dil ig e nc e in p ur su inghis a pp e a l. Al tho ug h w e re ma in s y

mpa the tic to t he ha rd sh ip e nd

ur e d b y the a pp e lla nt, fo r t he fo llo wi ngre a so ns , we hold that he doe s not meet the cr iteria for equitable tolling of

the judicial-a

ppeal pe riod. The a ppellant' s additional submissi ons in support of his moti on for r econside ration do not establish that his untim ely appea l was a dire ct re sult of Hurrica n e I van. See id. a t 33 2. We f ir st addre ss his clarification of the circ umstances surr ounding the loss of his pa pers. In our prior opinion,

we int e rp re te d h is o ri g ina l st a te me nt t hat he ha d " mis pla c e d" his pa pe rs to me an that he ha d los t hi s paper s in the attempt to settle with his insurance company and to make re pairs to his house. Id. at 33 2 -3 3 . The a dditional evidence he submitted on rec onsideration convinc es the Court that he "misplac ed" his papers a s a direc t result of Hurr icane I van. However , this conclusion alone is not7

sufficie nt to justify equitable tolling. Rather, he must demonstrate that the untimely appeal wa s a direc t result of Hurr icane I van. See id. a t 33 2. I n th a t r e g ard , w e c on c lud e that th e link b e tw e e n h is missing pape rs and his untimely appea l is too attenuate d for us to find that his untimely appea l was a dire ct re sult of Hurrica

ne Ivan. Specifica lly , we de termined in our pr ior opinion that "it ca nnot be said that the a

ppellant neede d his paperw ork to file an N OA in this Court and h e h as not demonstrate d how the mi sp lac eme ntof i t p reve nt ed h im fro m d oi ng so ." Id. at 333. Significa ntly , the appe llant does not

asser t that he filed his NOA late simply beca use he misplaced his paper s. Rather, he asser ts that he filed his NOA late beca

use he ha d misplaced his papers and then he did not think about his appeal until he came across hi s paper s while l ooking f or something else. SeeMcCrea ry Aff. ¶ 9 (stating that when he discovere d his papers on D ece mber 31, 2004, it " was the ve ry first time the pape rs had

crosse d my

mind since the hurr icane ")

. The fact that he forg ot about his papers is the r eason that he did no t f ile a tim e ly a pp e a l. T hu s, the Cou

rt un de rs tand s th a t th e a

pp e lla nt w a s p re occupie d w ith the c ha lle ng e s o f r e pa ir inghis ho us e and re tur nin g to h is d a ily

ro uti ne . H ow e ve r, the fa c t th a t he did not think about hi s appea l for three mont hs beca use he w as pre occupie d makes his untimely appea l too tenuously

linked to the hurrica

ne itself to be the dir ect r esult of the hurr icane

. We a re no t c on vin c e d that a

re a so na ble pe rs on , in

the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

his c a se , a c tin g wi th due dil ige nce w ould have f iled his NOA late. Se e Mc Cre ar y , 19 Vet.App. at 332. As noted above , the burde n of filing an NOAin this C ourt is very low. See id. a t 33 3. A s ing le ph on e c a ll t o h is repr esentative (who we assume would have advised him to fi l e h i s NOA immediately to preser ve his appellate r ights) or

a single corr espondenc e expressing an intent to appea l his B oard de cision sent to the Court betwee n the time Hurric ane Ivan struck in Septembe r 2004 and the date his a ppeal wa s due, Dec ember 28, 2004, would have pr eser ved his judicial appe al. See id. at 333. The appellant d id n e it h e r b e c a u s e , a s h e a dmi ts , h e f

o r g o t a b o u t h is a p p e a l in th e a f

te r ma th o f H ur r ic an e I v an
. We assume that, had the appellant discove red his pape rs ear lier, he would have filed his appea l sooner, lik e ly wi thi n th e 12 0 d ay s a ft e r t he B oa rd ' s d e c isi on . H ow e ve r, the fa c t th a t he fo rg ot a bo ut his los t paper s for more than three months does no t d em o n s t ra t e the dilig ence nece ssary to establish that eq u i t able tolling is a

ppropriate

. See id. a t 3 3 1 ( r e qu i r i n g p arty s e e k i n g e qu i t a b l e t o l lin g to d em o n s t ra t e du e d i l i gen ce "'t h ro u gh o u tth e p er i o d h e s ee k s t o t o l l '" ( qu o t i n g Sm ith , 208 F.3d at 17)).8

Moreove r, the a ctions by cer tain Gover

nment ag encie s ext endingdeadlines a s a re s ult of Hurric ane Ivan tends to neg ate his cla im for equitable tolling

. Although we find the ex tensions of time gr anted by

other Gove rnment entities t o be relevant, those ag encie s' deadlines or igina lly wer e set to expi re be tween Septe mber 13, 2004, a nd Dec ember

30, 2004. SeeSuppl. Mem. at 6-7. The appellant' s NOA, howe ver, w as not due until Dec embe r 2 8 , 2 0 0 4

. Even if we wer e to extend the judicial-appe al per iod in this case until De cembe r 30, 2004, as the Gover nment ag encie s cited in the

a pp e lla nt' s p le a din g s d id, his a

pp e a l wou ld stil l be unti me ly be c a us e he did

no t f ile his NO A unti l J anuar y 4, 2005. The a ction of these G overnme nt ag encie s reinfor ces our prior stateme nt that we would be more inclined t o toll the judicial-a ppeal pe riod in this case ha d the hurric ane struc k later duri ngthe jud ic ia l- a

pp e a l pe ri od , in

wh ic h c ase he wo uld

have ha d le ss t ime to g e t hi s a ff a ir s in order prior to the expirat ion of the judicial-a ppeal pe riod. Se e Mc Cre ar y , 19 Vet.App. at 334. Howeve r, the deadline for the appellant to file hi s NOA wa s more than thre e months after Hurric ane I van struck. Although the happensta

nce that reminded him of hi s appea l occur red c lose to the expiration of the 120-da

y judicial-appe al per iod, this prox imity cannot distract us fr om the fac t that he forg ot about his appea l for seve ral months. Thoug h the appe llant argues that his diligenc e af ter he found his pa perw ork justifies e quitable tolling in this case ( see Suppl. Mem. at 8-9), we cannot ac cept the

a pp e lla nt' s argume nt t

hat it is e no ug h th a t he a c te d with dil ig e nc e a ft e r he wa s re min de d ab out hi s appea l. Our conclusion that the appellant did not exercise due diligenc e is based pr imarily on the belief that a re asonably diligent claimant, under these circ umstances, who was dissatisfied with the Boa rd' s adjudication of his cla im, wo uld not have for g otten about his appea l for more than three months. The appellant ha s not demonstrated that the da mag e fr om Hurrica

ne Ivan dire ctly

resulted in bar ri er s beyond his control that continued to exist throug hout the judicial-appe al per iod and preve nted him from filing a timely NOA.

III . C ON CL USI ON A f t e r c o n s i d er at i o no f t h e ap p el l an t 's an d th e S ec re t ary 's p l ea d i n gs an d th e ap p el l an t 's aff idavit, the Court grants the appellant' s motion for rec onsideration. On rec onsideration, howe ver, the appe llant has not established that his untimely appea l was the direc t result of Hurr icane I van, nor9

demonstrated that he has a cted with due diligenc e in pur suing his judicia l appea l. Accor dingly , we
r e a f f i r mo u r S e p t e mb e r

2 , 2 0 0 5 , o p i n i o nan d

D IS M IS S th i s a

p p e a l a s un t i m e l y.