Court Opinion

ID: 9502284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:49:20.317211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:43.513917
License: Public Domain

ORDER
PER CURIAM:
In a November 6, 2001, en banc opinion, the Court denied the appellant’s application for an award of attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA), because the appellant is not a prevailing party under the EAJA. Sumner v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 256, 264-65 (2001) (en banc). On November 27, 2001, the appellant filed, through counsel, Clayte Binion, Esq., a timely motion for en banc reconsid*405eration. Prior to any action by this Court on his motion for reconsideration, the appellant, on December 27, 2001, filed, through a different counsel, Kenneth Carpenter, Esq., a Notice of Appeal (NOA) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).
The appellant’s filing of an NOA to the Federal Circuit divests this Court of all jurisdiction over this case. See In re Bailey, 11 Vet.App. 348, 349 (1998) (per curiam order) (holding that filing of NOA to Federal Circuit divests this Court of jurisdiction over respondent’s motion for stay of this Court’s disciplinary order); Villamor v. West, 11 Vet.App. 193 (1998) (en banc order) (same as to motion pending here for full Court review of single-judge decision); Cerullo v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 195, 196 (1991) (stating that legal precedent is clear that filing of NOA confers plenary jurisdiction upon appellate court). The Court thus lacks jurisdiction to review the appellant’s November 2001 motion for en banc reconsideration.
On consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.