Case: 22-1776 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/27/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHRISTOPHER A. VACA,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1776
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-8745, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
On October 7, 2021, this court dismissed Christopher
A. Vaca’s appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. See Vaca v.
McDonough, No. 2021-2022 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2021), ECF
No. 22. This court subsequently denied his petition for re-
hearing and issued mandate. Following the issuance of
mandate, Mr. Vaca submitted a “motion for full court re-
consideration” on January 4, 2022. Vaca v. McDonough,
No. 2021-2022, ECF No. 28 (capitalization omitted). On
January 6, 2022, this court informed Mr. Vaca by letter
Case: 22-1776 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/27/2022
2 VACA v. MCDONOUGH
that his appeal before this court was closed, that no further
action would be taken on his submitted documents, and
that further related filings would receive no response. The
Veterans Court subsequently issued its mandate in the
case on March 21, 2022. On April 5, 2022, the Veterans
Court received a notice of appeal from Mr. Vaca, indicating,
among other things, his desire to appeal from the Veterans
Court’s issuance of mandate. His notice of appeal and
briefing filed here also indicate a desire to challenge this
court’s handling of his January 4, 2022, motion.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292, not every action taken
by the Veterans Court is appealable. Section 7292(a) pro-
vides that, in general, a party may only seek review of a
decision of the Veterans Court and only with respect to the
validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation relied
on by the court in making its decision. If an appeal does
not meet these criteria, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) requires dis-
missal. See In re Bailey, 182 F.3d 860, 870 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
At bottom, Mr. Vaca is attempting to relitigate his prior
appeal by appealing from the Veterans Court’s entry of the
mandate in the very same matter. But the Veterans
Court’s issuance of its mandate in this matter merely car-
ried out its earlier judgment, which was left undisturbed
by our previous decision; it was not an otherwise appeala-
ble decision. We accordingly lack jurisdiction over Mr.
Vaca’s current appeal. As to Mr. Vaca’s arguments con-
cerning the handling of his January 4, 2022, motion, this
court has already informed him that his prior appeal is
closed and that no further action would be taken.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This matter is dismissed.
Case: 22-1776 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 06/27/2022
VACA v. MCDONOUGH 3
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
June 27, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court