ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and dismiss Rashid El Malik’s appeal as untimely. In the alternative, the Secretary moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. El Malik submits a letter concerning his appeal.

The certified list of docket entries of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in El Malik v. Shinseki, No. 08-3741, 2009 WL 5125104, reflects that that court’s judgment was entered on January 22, 2010. That court dismissed El Malik’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. El Malik filed a motion with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. The court granted El Malik’s motion, and El Malik filed a motion for reconsideration within the extended period. On June 4, 2010, the court denied El Ma-lik’s motion and El Malik filed an additional motion for reconsideration or panel review. El Malik filed another motion for reconsideration on July 13, 2010. The court rejected the additional documents as untimely. The court issued its mandate on July 27, 2010. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims received El Malik’s notice of appeal on August 9, 2010.

An appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must be filed within 60 days of entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). In this case, the notice of appeal from the judgment was due no later than March 23, 2010, and any notice of appeal from the June 4, 2010 order denying his motion for reconsideration was due no later than August 3, 2010. Because El Ma-lik’s notice of appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims on August 9, 2010, it was untimely.

The requirement to timely file a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement); Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (“An untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the requirement cannot be waived, and is not subject to equitable tolling.”).

Accordingly,

It Is ORDERED That:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. Any other motions are denied as moot.

(2) Each side shall hear its own costs.