extends to the relief requested by Mr. Ribaudo. See Ramsey, 20 Vet.App. 16, 21 (2006) (citing In re Fee Agreement of Cox, 10 Vet.App. 361, 371 (1997)). Statutorily as to forum, we clearly indicated in our decision granting Mr. Ribaudo’s petition that we retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of our decisions even after we no longer have jurisdiction over the merits of a case because it has been appealed to the Federal Circuit. Ribaudo, 20 Vet.App. at 560; see also Heckler v. Lopez, 463 U.S. 1328, 104 S.Ct. 10, 77 L.Ed.2d 1431 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., acting as Circuit Justice); JWK Intern. Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 364, 370 (2001), aff'd, 279 F.3d 985 (Fed.Cir.2002). Any panel opinion by this Court suggesting otherwise is hereby overruled. See, e.g., In re Bailey, supra (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court holds that there is
holding that mere entry of a remand order divests a federal court of jurisdiction even where no certified copy of the order was mailed to a state court holding that filing of appeal to federal circuit divests this court of jurisdiction to consider motion to stay court order pending appeal holding that certification of a remand order divests federal court jurisdiction holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment holding that the mailing of a certified copy of a remand order to a state court divests federal jurisdiction