Court Opinion

ID: 2645802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-13 01:01:28.187406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:53.562752
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

              MICHAEL P. EDWARDS,
                Claimant-Appellant,

                           v.

 ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
              Respondent-Appellee.
             ______________________

                      2013-7022
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 11-1993, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.
                ______________________

              Decided: December 12, 2013
                ______________________

   KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter, Chartered, of
Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.

    ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD, Trial Attorney, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respond-
ent-appellee. On the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Direc-
tor, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. Of
counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy
Assistant General Counsel and MARTIE ADELMAN, Attor-
2                                      EDWARDS   v. SHINSEKI

ney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of
Washington, DC.     Of counsel was BRIAN D. GRIFFIN,
Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
of Washington, DC.
                ______________________

    Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit
                          Judges.
RADER, Chief Judge.
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims af-
firmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ determination that
Michael P. Edwards’ October 17, 2007 purported Notice of
Disagreement was invalid under pertinent VA regula-
tions. Because Mr. Edwards seeks review of issues of fact
and the application of law to fact beyond this court’s
statutory jurisdiction, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), this court
dismisses the appeal.
                       DISMISSED