Frank Moreno, Jr. v. Shinseki , 505 F. App'x 956 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-7170 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 04/26/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRANK MORENO, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
2012-7170
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 10-1314, Judge Ronald M. Holda-
way.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Frank Moreno, Jr., responds to the court’s order di-
recting him to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed as untimely. The Secretary also responds,
arguing that Mr. Moreno’s appeal should be dismissed as
untimely.
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered
judgment in this case on April 24, 2012. That court
Case: 12-7170 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 04/26/2013
2 FRANK MORENO, JR. v. SHINSEKI
received Moreno’s notice of appeal on August 6, 2012, 104
days after the date of the judgment.
Any appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims must be received within 60 days of the date of
entry of judgment. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The statutory deadline
for taking an appeal to this court is jurisdictional and
mandatory. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209
(2007); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197,
1204-05 (2011) (noting Congress’s intent to impose the
same jurisdictional restrictions on an appeal from the
Veterans Court to the Federal Circuit as on an appeal
from a district court to a court of appeals).
In his response, Mr. Moreno notes that he is blind and
does “not move (literally and figuratively) as fast as
others.” The Supreme Court has made clear, however,
that there are no exceptions to the rule that an untimely
appeal to this court must be dismissed. Bowles, 551 U.S.
at 213-14; see also International Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS
Corp., 515 F.3d 1353, 1357–58 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“In Bowles,
the Supreme Court emphasized the jurisdictional nature
of notices of appeal and held that the jurisdictional rules
lack equitable exceptions.”). Because this appeal was not
received within the statutory period, we must dismiss.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
(3) All pending motions are moot.
Case: 12-7170 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 04/26/2013
FRANK MORENO, JR. v. SHINSEKI 3
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
s25