Case: 25-2055 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 12/29/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ALLEN CLIFFORD SMITH, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2025-2055 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 24-704, Judge Grant Jaquith. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s show cause order, the Secre- tary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Allen Clifford Smith has not responded to the order but has submitted his informal opening brief and a motion to “give In Person Live testimony.” ECF No. 8 at 2. Case: 25-2055 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 12/29/2025

2 SMITH v. COLLINS

Mr. Smith appealed the decision of the Board of Veter- ans’ Appeals denying an earlier effective date for his ser- vice-connected disability. On May 22, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered judg- ment affirming the Board’s decision. On June 20, 2025, Mr. Smith moved to extend the time to seek reconsideration at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which was de- nied July 1, 2025. On July 25, 2025, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims received his notice of appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) to hear Mr. Smith’s appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims because his appeal from that judgment was untimely. Like appeals from district courts, the statutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is jurisdic- tional. See Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011) (“Because the time for taking an appeal from a district court to a court of appeals in a civil case has long been understood to be jurisdictional, th[e] language [of § 7292(a)] clearly signals an intent to impose the same re- strictions on appeals from the [Court of Appeals for Veter- ans Claims] to the Federal Circuit.” (citation omitted)). To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed “within the time and in the manner prescribed for appeal” from a district court to a court of appeals, which, as relevant here, is 60 days after the judgment. § 7292(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). Mr. Smith filed his appeal 64 days after the judgment, which is outside that jurisdictional deadline.1

1 While the appeal was filed within 60 days from the order denying Mr. Smith’s motion to extend the time to seek reconsideration, he fails to raise any challenge to that order in his informal opening brief. Case: 25-2055 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 12/29/2025

SMITH v. COLLINS 3

Mr. Smith’s motion to extend the time to request recon- sideration at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims did not toll the time to appeal the final judgment. Under the applicable rules, a motion for reconsideration “shall be filed not later than 21 days . . . after the date of the dispositive action for which reconsideration, panel review, or full Court review is sought.” Rule 35(d) of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Mr. Smith’s motion, to the extent he was seeking reconsidera- tion, was filed 29 days after the date of the decision and after judgment had already been issued. That was too late to toll. See Nastor v. Nicholson, 153 F. App’x 735, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting “motion for reconsideration was un- timely under [that court’s] rules and did not toll the time for filing an appeal”); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

December 29, 2025 Date