Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two dismiss appeals, and one dismisses a petition. This morning, the Court released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four additional nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one summarily affirms a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, two dismiss appeals, and one dismisses a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.
Jackson v. Collins (Precedential)
Alexandra M. Jackson is an attorney. She represented veteran John A. Lovier, Jr. before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). She now appeals the June 25, 2024 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that affirmed the May 22, 2022 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying her request for attorney’s fees arising out of her representation of Mr. Lovier. Jackson v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 277 (2024), J.A. 2–36. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Pellegrino v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Mark Pellegrino appeals an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint seeking federal tax refunds on behalf of the “Mark Pellegrino Estate.” Appx. 30–36. We affirm.
De Hart v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
This case involves a veteran’s appeal relating to the effective date of her entitlement to service-related disability benefits. Specifically, the challenge at issue involves the requirements to place a disability determination by a regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) into appellate status.
In re Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office moves for leave to file an entry of appearance for Sarah E. Craven, Nicholas T. Matich, Robert J. McManus, and Kevin K. McNish and separately moves to remand the above-captioned appeal.
Sanders v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Determining that he was ineligible under the so-called three-strike provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the United States Court of Federal Claims denied prisoner Quordalis V. Sanders’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and subsequently dismissed his case for failure to prosecute after Mr. Sanders did not pay the filing fee. Mr. Sanders appeals, files his opening brief, and moves to proceed IFP on appeal. We summarily affirm.