Whether 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1) requires the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to conduct de novo review of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), and whether the Veterans Court must sua sponte ensure that veterans have not been improperly denied the benefit of the doubt when evidence is in approximate balance

are of exceptional importance to veterans and the veterans court system, because proper application of the rule affects a huge volume of veterans claims. And only this Court can review the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the statute in question, because of the Federal Circuit’s exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in this area. 3. A 56-day extension within which to file a certiorari petition is reasonable and necessary. a. Undersigned counsel and her firm have only recently been retained to represent the Applicant in this matter. Additional time is necessary for counsel to become fully familiar with the issues, the decision below, the record, and relevant case law, and to best present the issues for this Court’s review. b. As noted above, Applicant intends to file a joint petition for a writ of certiorari in connection with Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 22-1089 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Additional time is thus also needed to coordinate the presentation of the two cases. c. The request is further justified by undersigned counsel’s press of business on other pending matters. Among other things, counsel has a petition for certiorari due in this Court on December 4, regarding Forsythe v. McDonough, No. 22-1610 (Fed. Cir.) (extension request forthcoming); a reply brief in In re Canon Inc., No. 24102 (Fed. Cir.), due on October 16; a response brief in Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1463 (Fed. Cir.), due on October 27; a reply brief in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, No. 23-1494 (Fed. Cir.), due on November 2; a response and reply brief in Apple Inc v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, No. 23-1475 (Fed. Cir.), due on December 5; a response and reply brief in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Nos. 23-1501, 23-1554 (Fed. Cir.), due on December 18; and an answering brief in Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2208 (Fed. Cir.), due on December 19. The requested 56-day extension would cause no prejudice to Respondent, who has advised that he has no objection to the extension. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Melanie L. Bostwick Melanie L. Bostwick Counsel of Record ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 339-8400 October 12, 2023