[PDF] NOTE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

HON DAVID B COHEN - Part 58 Rules (last updated March 10, 2021

A mere recitation of PJI sections will be rejected by the court B Post-trial motions shall be made within 15 days after verdict (CPLR 4405) Author:

State v Hoffman - Supreme Court of Ohio

“mere recitation of the statutory elements of the crime is not sufficient to support a finding that probable cause exists ” 2013-Ohio-1082, 989 N E 2d 156, ¶ 17 (6th Dist ) It concluded that the misdemeanor arrest warrants were invalid due to the deputy clerk’s admission that they were issued without any probable-cause determination

United States Court of Appeals

rule because the recitation of consideration was a promise of future, ongoing payment in exchange for the services of certain musicians Such a recitation of consideration was a contract term rather than a mere recitation Id at 704-05 Similarly, the Missouri Court of Appeals refused to apply the exception to a computer equipment

DIRECTIVE - California

with WIA Section 184(d) and Title 20 CFR Section 667 730 Mere statements of compliance and recitation of the criteria will not be acceptable Examples of appropriate documentation include, but are not limited to, proof that debt collection letters were sent (e g , returned certified mail receipts), litigation was conducted and

NOTE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Feb 03, 2021 · have jurisdiction to consider a “mere recitation of statutes and regulations contemplat[ing] a legal question[] [that] nevertheless fails to identify how the Veterans Court mis-construed the statutes and regulations or improperly de-cided a rule of law”) Third, Mr Johnson requests a “remedy” from the VA

Example 37 – Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface

Jan 07, 2019 · amount of use of each icon The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping Thus, the claim recites a mental process 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? Yes The claim recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

informative than a mere recitation of the words of the statute (Citation omitted ) The usual remedy when a sanctions order fails to comply with subdivision (c) of section128 5 is remand for the trial court either to enter a new order or to vacate the attorney fees award (Citation omitted ) We decline to do so because, we

MEMORANDUM OPINION

must do more than simply provide “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ” Davis v Abington Mem’l Hosp

COMMON LAW AND THE COURTS

understand how to apply it This requires more than mere recitation of rules and principles You must be able to apply the law to different fact patterns you’ll encounter in your daily work In order to understand the law, you’ll need to become familiar with the courts and the decisions they hand down

[PDF] recitation africaine

[PDF] les investissements du maroc en afrique subsaharienne

[PDF] relation.maroc afrique 2017

[PDF] la coopération maroco africaine

[PDF] relation maroc afrique 2016

[PDF] les relations entre le maroc et l'afrique

[PDF] partenariat maroc afrique

[PDF] relation maroc afrique pdf

[PDF] les relations entre le maroc et l'afrique 2016

[PDF] carte du sahel

[PDF] les 16 etats de l afrique de l ouest

[PDF] zone sahélienne

[PDF] sahel définition

[PDF] les pays du sahel africain

[PDF] type d'agriculture en afrique subsaharienne

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PAUL D. JOHNSON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DAT TRAN, ACTING

SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 2020
-1778 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-7030, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________

Decided: February 3, 2021

______________________ P

AUL D. JOHNSON, Raiford, FL, pro se.

MICHAEL D. SNYDER, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division,

United States

Department of Justice, Wash-

ington, DC, for respondent -appellee. Also represented by J

EFFREY B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE,

Office of General Counsel,

United States

Department of

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 02/03/2021

JOHNSON v. TRAN 2

Before PROST, Chief Judge, SCHALL and REYNA, Circuit

Judges.

P

ER CURIAM.

Paul D. Johnson appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to com- pel the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to ascertain the nature of certain (counterfeit) checks deposited into Mr. Johnson's inmate trust fund account.

See Johnson v. Wilkie, No. 19-

7030, 2019 WL

6315416

(Vet. App. Nov. 26, 2019). For the reasons below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. B

ACKGROUND

Mr. Johnson

is a veteran who served in Vietnam in 1968.
But this appeal does not involve service-connected benefits (or any benefits at all). Rather, the compensation Mr. Johnson received - which he apparently is not entitled to and did not request - consisted of counterfeit checks. Mr. Johnson is incarcerated in Florida. In February

2018, two checks were deposited into Mr. Johnson's inmate

trust fund account, in the amounts of $2,784.49 and $706.51. For each check, the account statement listed the remitter as "VA Administration."

In August 2018, the Flor-

ida Department of Corrections ("FDC") informed Mr. John- son that his checks from the "VA Administration" had been returned and determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be "counterfeit." S.A. 17-18. The FDC then placed a lien on Mr. Johnson's account in the amount of $3,491.00 (the total amount of the two February 2018 checks). S.A. 16. S eeking to unfreeze the funds, Mr. Johnson requested a waiver of indebtedness from the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") in January 2019. S.A. 19-20. In May 2019, the VA informed Mr. Johnson that based on its records he "[is] not in receipt of compensation or pensions benefits." S.A. 24. The VA further explained that its "records do not

reflect any monetary payment being issued to Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/03/2021

JOHNSON v. TRAN 3

[Mr. Johnson]" and that "[c]urrently [Mr. Johnson] ha[s] no pending claims with the VA Regional Office." Id. Subsequently, in August 2019, Mr. Johnson submitted a petition to the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the VA to "resolve the issue of the alleged Counter- feit Checks" deposited into Mr. Johnson's inmate trust fund account, remove the $3,491.00 lien placed thereon, and forgive any debt related to the counterfeit checks. The Veterans Court denied Mr. Johnson's petition for lack of ju- risdiction, concluding that "[t]he information before the

Court indicates

that VA has nothing directly to do with this controversy."

See Johnson, 2019 WL 6315416, at *2. The

Veterans Court noted that "Mr. Johnson does not dispute the checks deposited in his inmate trust account were coun- terfeit and not issued by VA" and that "[Mr. Johnson's] pe- tition never asserts that he is entitled to receive VA benefits." Id. at *1. The court also found that "the evidence supplied by VA confirms that [Mr. Johnson] is not [entitled to VA benefits]" and that "there are no issues involved here that could properly be the subject of an eventual Board de- cision."

Id. at *1-2. Mr. Johnson appealed.

D

ISCUSSION

We have limited jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)(2), except to the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we may not "review (A) a challenge to a factual determina- tion, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case."

See also Conway v. Principi,

353
F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[W]e cannot review applications of law to fact."). We have jurisdiction, how-

ever, to "decide all relevant questions of law." 38 U.S.C. Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 02/03/2021

JOHNSON v. TRAN 4

7292(d)(1). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to re-

view any of the issues raised by Mr. Johnson. 1 First, Mr. Johnson argues that the VA should be con- sidered a "party" to this controversy and that the Veterans Court erred in finding that the VA was not directly in- volved. Mr. Johnson's theory appears to be that the VA is directly involved because his inmate trust fund account statement listed "VA Administration" as remitter of the checks in question. This is perhaps the decisive issue. But the Veterans Court's determination that the checks were counterfeit and not issued by the VA "is a factual question over which we lack jurisdiction."

Roberts v. Shinseki, 647

F.3d 1334, 1339 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Indeed,

in his reply brief, Mr. Johnson acknowledges that his assertion that the VA remitted the checks challenges a factual determi- nation by the Veterans Court. Second, Mr. Johnson asserts that the VA had a duty under the United States Code and Code of Federal Regula- tions to report the issue of the counterfeit checks to appro- priate authorities but failed to do so. In support, Mr. Johnson cites 31 U.S.C. § 310 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 1.203-

1.204. In particular, Mr. Johnson points out that 38 C.F.R.

1.203 states that "[i]nformation about actual or possible

violations of criminal laws related to VA programs, opera- tions, facilities, or involving VA employees . . . will be re- ported by VA management officials to the VA police." But the Veterans Court found that the counterfeit checks did not arise from any VA program or benefit. Johnson, 2019 WL 6315416, at *1. Thus, 38 C.F.R. § 1.203 does not confer jurisdiction here. Nor do the other statutes and regula- tions cited by Mr. Johnson. The Veterans Court only ap- plied the relevant law to the facts of the case.

Absent a

constitutional issue, we do not have jurisdiction to review 1

We have also considered Mr. Johnson's "Memoran-

dum in Lieu of Oral Argument" (ECF No. 39). Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 02/03/2021

JOHNSON v. TRAN 5

the application of law to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see also Conway, 353 F.3d at 1372; Payne v. McDonald, 587 F. App'x 649, 651 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that we do not have jurisdiction to consider a "mere recitation of statutes and regulations contemplat[ing] a legal question[] [that] nevertheless fails to identify how the Veterans Court mis- construed the statutes and regulations or improperly de- cided a rule of law"). Third, Mr. Johnson requests a "remedy" from the VA or another agency to address the issue of the counterfeit checks. But the Veterans Court found that there are no issues involved here that could properly be the subject of an eventual Board decision. Johnson, 2019 WL 6315416, at *2. The Veterans Court further determined that it had no authority to order the VA to compel other entities to in- vestigate the counterfeit checks under the circumstances of this case. See id. at *1. We do not have jurisdiction to re- view such application of law to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Fourth, Mr. Johnson requests relief under 38 U.S.C.

503, 5120, and other related statutes and regulations re-

garding benefits administered by the VA. However, the Veterans Court found that Mr. Johnson is currently not en- titled to receive VA benefits. This is a factual question over which we lack jurisdiction. C

ONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Johnson's remaining argu-

ments and find them unpersuasive.

For the foregoing rea-

sons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

C OSTS No costs. Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 02/03/2021quotesdbs_dbs10.pdfusesText_16