        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
               __________________________

                  ROBERT L. HUNT,
                  Claimant-Appellant,
                            v.
 ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
                  AFFAIRS,
              Respondent-Appellee.
               __________________________

                       2009-7134
               __________________________

    Petition for review of the Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims No. 07-2587, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel
               ____________________________

                 Decided: June 15, 2010
             ____________________________

   VIRGINIA A. GIRARD-BRADY, ABS Legal Advocates,
P.A., of Lawrence, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.

     SAMEER YERAWADEKAR, Trial Attorney, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon-
dent-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY WEST,
Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Direc-
tor, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, Assistant Director. Of coun-
HUNT   v. DVA                                            2


sel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel, and DANA RAFFAELLI, Attorney, United
States Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the
General Counsel, of Washington, DC.
                __________________________

       Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
    Hunt appeals from the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming
the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the
Board”) denying entitlement to service connection for a
psychiatric disability. Hunt v. Shinseki, No. 07-2587 (Vet.
App. July 1, 2009). Hunt argues that the Veterans Court
erred in its interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) by
accepting the reasons and bases set forth by the Board for
rejecting certain evidence and by not independently
reviewing those reasons for adequacy and justification. In
effect, Hunt is asking this court to review factual deter-
minations. Such review is outside the scope of our juris-
diction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss.


                      DISMISSED
