28, 2015. On December 1, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for review by this court. Because notice of the October 28 CRB decision was given by mail, petitioner would have timely sought review, if it were an appealable order. However, the dates of the other two decisions — September 23 and October 8 — are well beyond the thirty-plus-five-day period for seeking review by this court. Those decisions are properly before us only if petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration continued to toll the time for filing a petition for review. We hold that it did n (D.C. 1952) (“A party should not be allowed to indefinitely extend the time for appeal by the filing of successive motions.”). The same logic applies to agency cases. See Peabody Coal Co. v. Abner, 118 F.3d 1106, 1108 (6th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the CRB’s decisions in the first
holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal holding that a second motion for reconsideration of an agency decision regarding disability benefits did not toll the time for appeal the time limit would be a joke if parties could continually file new motions preventing the judgment from becoming final quoting charles v daley 799 f2d 343 347 7th cir 1986 holding that a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for appeal because to hold otherwise would permit dilatory tactics destructive of the finality of the judgment holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal