OpenJurist

33 F3d 64 Hall v. Brown

33 F.3d 64

Roy L. HALL, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Jesse BROWN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-7128.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1994.

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

1

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed.Cir.R. 27(e) and to dismiss Roy L. Hall's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Hall has not responded.

2

The Court of Veterans Appeals affirmed the Board of Veterans Appeals' decision that denied Hall's request to discontinue an apportionment of $167 per month of his improved disability pension benefits on behalf of his minor child. The Court of Veterans Appeals affirmed the Board's factual findings and stated that "there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board's determinations in this case and that appellant has not demonstrated that the Board committed either factual or legal error which would warrant reversal."

3

Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7292, this court may review only challenges to the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, or to the interpretation of a constitutional provision, that the Court of Veterans Appeals relied on in its decision. If an appeal to this court from the Court of Veterans Appeals does not challenge the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, or the interpretation of a constitutional provision, Sec. 7292(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal. That section states that this Court "may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case."

4

In his informal brief, Hall argues that the Board and the Court of Veterans Appeals failed to consider various facts concerning his divorce and other proceedings. Hall challenges only factual determinations. As this court has no jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry, this appeal must be dismissed. See Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225-26 (Fed.Cir.1992).

5

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

6

(1) The Secretary's motion to waive the requirements of Fed.Cir.R. 27(e) is granted.

7

(2) The Secretary's motion to dismiss is granted.

8

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.