Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
2011-7100•Pamela J. Sharp v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
2011-7100Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit18.11.2011
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
PAMELA J. SHARP,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
2011-7100
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in Case No. 07-2481, Judge Robert N.
Davis.
____________________________
Decided: November 18, 2011
____________________________
S ANDRA E. BOOTH , of Columbus, Ohio, argued for
claimant-appellant.
M EREDYTH COHEN H AVASY, Trial Attorney, Commer-
cial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for
respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were TONY
-- 1 of 2 --
SHARP v. DVA 2
WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. D AVIDSON ,
Director, MARTIN F. H OCKEY, JR., Assistant Director, and
M EREDYTH COHEN H AVASY, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on
the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel, and AMAMNDA R. BLACKMON , Attorney,
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Wash-
ington, DC.
__________________________
Before LOURIE, LINN , and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Pamela J. Sharp (“Sharp”) appeals from a decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
denying entitlement to attorney fees and expenses under
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). See
Sharp v. Shinseki, No. 07-2481(E) (Vet. App. Feb. 8,
2011). Sharp’s appeal does not present a constitutional
issue or a question of law. Rather, her appeal would
require this court to review questions of fact and applica-
tion of law to fact. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), however,
we lack jurisdiction to review such factual determina-
tions. We must therefore dismiss Sharp’s appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.