Court Opinion

ID: 6346553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-03 14:03:23.964557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:21.659778
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1928    Document: 58     Page: 1   Filed: 05/06/2022

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 WILLIAM SHEPPARD,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                        2021-1928
                  ______________________

      Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 19-4776, Chief Judge Margaret C.
 Bartley, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Judge Michael P. Al-
 len.
                  ______________________

                   Decided: May 6, 2022
                  ______________________

     MEGAN EILEEN HOFFMAN, Veterans Legal Advocacy
 Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also
 represented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III;
 BENJAMIN BINDER, Tampa, FL; JENIFER LOHNES, Lohnes
 Law PLLC, Charlottesville, VA.

    LIRIDONA SINANI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice,
Case: 21-1928    Document: 58      Page: 2    Filed: 05/06/2022

 2                                   SHEPPARD   v. MCDONOUGH

 Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also
 represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,
 ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD; JONATHAN KRISCH, Y. KEN
 LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department
 of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
                  ______________________

     Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
     William Sheppard argues that the Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(d)
 (2018) (since amended and renumbered to 38 C.F.R.
 § 20.104(c)). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the
 Veterans Court determined in the alternative that any er-
 ror is harmless, and we do not have jurisdiction to review
 the Veterans Court’s harmless-error determination. Con-
 way v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38
 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
                        DISMISSED
 No costs.