Enrique M. Flores-Vazquez v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ENRIQUE M. FLORES-VAZQUEZ,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1587
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-8002, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Enrique M. Flores-Vazquez appeals from an order of
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his petition to the Su-
preme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari
that he filed at the Veterans Court. Having considered the
Veterans Court’s decision and Mr. Flores-Vazquez’s infor-
mal opening brief, we summarily affirm.
Case: 22-1587 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

FLORES- VAZQUEZ v. MCDONOUGH 2
In 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs deter-
mined that Mr. Flores-Vazquez had service-connected bi-
polar disorder with depression and assigned a 30%
disability rating effective January 24, 2005. Mr. Flores-
Vazquez sought an earlier effective date of November 1998,
which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied. The Veter-
ans Court affirmed the Board’s decision in 2018. On appeal
to this court, we upheld the Veterans Court’s decision and
denied rehearing on July 29, 2021. More than four months
later, on December 6, 2021, Mr. Flores-Vazquez filed at the
Veterans Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
the Supreme Court’s review of our decision.* On February
18, 2022, the Veterans Court dismissed the petition, ex-
plaining that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision.
This appeal followed.
The court finds that summary disposition is appropri-
ate because there is no substantial question regarding the
outcome of this appeal. See Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the Veterans Court
was clearly correct that only the Supreme Court could re-
view this court’s decision. Mr. Flores-Vazquez’s informal
brief raises no plausible challenge to the Veterans Court’s
dismissal ruling. Instead, his filings before this court
largely consist of assertions going to the merits of his ear-
lier-effective claim: that his case file is missing documents
and includes false statements and that certain evidence
from the record was never considered. ECF No. 4 at 2. Be-
cause there is no question as to the outcome here, we sum-
marily affirm.
* The court notes that the petition would have been
untimely if filed at the Supreme Court. See S. Ct. R. 13.1
& 13.3 (stating that petition is timely when it is filed with
the Clerk of the Supreme Court within 90 days after entry
of the judgment that is the subject of the petition).
Case: 22-1587 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

FLORES- VAZQUEZ v. MCDONOUGH 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The Veterans Court’s judgment is summarily af-
firmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
May 12, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1587 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 05/12/2022

-- 3 of 3 --