Counsel for Zahara was informed of the consequences of Zahara's failure to timely file an opening brief. Nevertheless counsel neither filed a brief or a timely request for an enlargement of time in which to do so, and he has provided no explanation whatsoever for his failure to file an opening brief as ordered. Furthermore, it was Zahara's obligation to inform the Board of his change of address. Failure to do so demonstrates a lack of due diligence. Finally, Zahara does not explain how he timely received notice of the Board's Order to Show
[Page 4]
Cause, but failed to receive notice of the briefing order. Therefore, Zahara has failed to establish good cause for his failure to comply with the Board's order to file an opening brief in this case. Accordingly, we DISMISS his appeal.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A (West Supp. 2006).
2 Zahara v. SLM Corp., ALJ No. 2006-SOX-130.
3 D. & O. at 5-6.
4 The Administrative Review Board has jurisdiction to decide Zahara's appeal. See Secretary's Order 1-2002 (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110.
5 Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
6 Id. at 630-631.
7 ARB No. 99-012, ALJ No. 1998-ERA-033 (Sept. 13, 2000).
8 Id., slip op. at 2. Accord Muggleston v. EG & G Def. Materials, ARB No. 04-060, ALJ No. 2002-SDW-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 30, 2004); Blodgett v. Tenn, Dep't of Env't & Conservation, ARB No. 03-043, ALJ N. 2003-CAA-007, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar. 19, 2004).
9 370 U.S. 626, 633-634 (1962) (quoting Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320, 326 (1879)).