Royrita K. Yarbough v. Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROYRITA K. YARBOUGH,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
2013-7064
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 11-1632, Chief Judge Bruce E.
Kasold.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST and O’MALLEY , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss
this appeal. Royrita K. Yarbough opposes the motion.
Case: 13-7064 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013

-- 1 of 3 --

ROYRITA YARBOUGH v. SHINSEKI 2
On October 17, 2012, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) issued a
decision holding that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) failed to adequately address why a letter submit-
ted by Ms. Yarbough did not constitute the equivalent of a
request for additional time to submit a timely substantive
appeal. In light of that conclusion, the Veterans Court
remanded the case to the Board for further adjudication.
On November 8, 2012, the Veterans Court entered judg-
ment in the case. According to the docket of the Veterans
Court, the court received her notice of appeal on February
13, 2013, 97 days after the date of the underlying judg-
ment.*
To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed with the
Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment.
See 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 thus mandatory. Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007); Henderson v. Shinseki, 131
S. Ct. 1197, 1204-05 (2011) (the language of Section
7292(a) “clearly signals an intent” to impose the same
jurisdictional restrictions on an appeal from the Veterans
Court to the Federal Circuit as imposed on appeals from a
district court to a court of appeals). Because Ms. Yar-
bough’s appeal as to the underlying judgment was filed
* On December 26, 2012, the Veterans Court issued a
post-judgment order denying what it construed as a
motion for leave to file, out of time, a motion for full court
review. Although Ms. Yarbough’s notice of appeal was
filed within 60 days from the date of that decision, she
does not seek review of that order in her notice of appeal
and does not take issue with that order in her brief. See
Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., 514 F.3d 1229,
1240 n. 16 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A]n issue not raised by an
appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”).
Case: 13-7064 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013

-- 2 of 3 --

ROYRITA YARBOUGH v. SHINSEKI 3
outside of the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to
this court, we must dismiss.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed as
untimely.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
(3) All pending motions are moot.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk
s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 18, 2013
Case: 13-7064 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2013

-- 3 of 3 --