Eugenio M. Delos Santos v. Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
EUGENIO M. DELOS SANTOS,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
2013-7072
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 11-632, Judge Kenneth B. Kra-
mer.
__________________________
ON MOTION
__________________________
Before N EWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss
this appeal as untimely.
On August 7, 2012, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) entered
Case: 13-7072 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 06/18/2013

-- 1 of 3 --

EUGENIO DELOS SANTOS v. SHINSEKI 2
judgment in Eugenio M. Delos Santos’ case. According to
the docket of the Veterans Court, the court received
Santos’ notice of appeal on February 26, 2013, 203 days
after the date of judgment.
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. Hender-
son 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 im-
posed on appeals from a district court to a court of ap-
peals); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
Because Santos’ appeal as to the underlying judgment
was filed outside of the statutory deadline for taking an
appeal to this court, we must dismiss the appeal.*
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
* The Secretary also correctly points out that Santos’
“motion for reconsideration” received by the Veterans
Court on November 5, 2012 was untimely and does not
toll the jurisdictional time period for appeal to this court.
We agree. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205 (2007)
Case: 13-7072 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 06/18/2013

-- 2 of 3 --

EUGENIO DELOS SANTOS v. SHINSEKI 3
F OR T HE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk
s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 18, 2013
Case: 13-7072 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 06/18/2013

-- 3 of 3 --