Case Name: Moses Renti HOLLIDAY, Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-24
Citations: 15 Vet. App. 21
Docket Number: No. 99-1788
Parties: Moses Renti HOLLIDAY, Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Judges: Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY, HOLDAWAY, IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.
Reporter: West's Veterans Appeals Reporter
Volume: 15
Pages: 21–22

Head Matter:
Moses Renti HOLLIDAY, Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
No. 99-1788.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
May 24, 2001.
Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY, HOLDAWAY, IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
In a panel opinion dated February 22, 2001, the Court vacated the September 30, 1999, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that denied the appellant's claims for increased disability ratings for multiple service-connected facial injury residuals, and remanded the matters to the Board for the Department of Veterans Affairs to make a determination in the first instance as to the applicability of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000), to the appellant's claim. Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 280 (2001).
On March 15, 2001, the Secretary filed a timely motion for panel reconsideration of the Court's opinion or, in the alternative, for a full Court decision. On April 27, 2001, the Court issued a per curiam order denying the motion for panel reconsideration of its February 22, 2001, opinion. Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 327 (2001) (per curiam order).
Motions for a full Court decision are not favored. Ordinarily they will not be granted unless such action is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court's decisions or to resolve a question of exceptional importance. It is not sufficient merely to allege that one of the two foregoing criteria are met; it must be demonstrated. In the instant case, the appellant has not shown that either basis exists to warrant a full Court decision.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the motion for a full Court decision is denied.