checked a box that indicated that he wanted to appeal all of the issues listed on the Statement of the Case and any Supplemental Statements of the Case that he had received. See id. The May 2001 Substantive Appeal form, again signed by Mr. Robinson and attorney Cameron, contains little more. The argument section of that appeal form contains only the following statement: “I disagree with all of the conclusions in your office’s Statement of the Case, dated April 18, 2001. The [r]egional office failed to consider all of the evidence and failed to follow the correct legal standards in reaching its conclusions.” R. at 174. The presence of attorney Cameron throughout the appeals process before the Agency is a significant factor that solidifies our conclusion. See Andrews, 421 F.3d at 1283 (<HOLDING>); see also Overton v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App.
holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees holding that  1447c does not apply to counsel holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion holding that vas obligation to sympathetically read a clearandunmistakableerror motion does not apply to pleadings filed by an attorney