22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4cf,MEMORANDUM Dale Pennie petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s order issued on October 19, 2007. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s order denying Pennie’s request to modify an earlier award of compensation under the Long-shore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 . We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Pennie’s petition for review was received by this court more than sixty days after the Board’s order issued. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition. See 33 U.S.C. 921(c); Felt v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 11 F.3d 951, 952-53 (9th Cir.1993) (order) (explaining that section 921(c)’s sixty-day filing period is a “jurisdictional requirement,” and equitable considerations are unavailing); see also Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 29 F.3d 513 , 516 (9th Cir.1994) (“The policy requiring that appeals be timely taken is so strong that ministerial failures by a clerk cannot be allowed to overcome it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4fc,

MEMORANDUM

Dale Pennie petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s order issued on October 19, 2007. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s order denying Pennie’s request to modify an earlier award of compensation under the Long-shore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 . We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Pennie’s petition for review was received by this court more than sixty days after the Board’s order issued. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition. See 33 U.S.C. 921(c); Felt v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 11 F.3d 951, 952-53 (9th Cir.1993) (order) (explaining that section 921(c)’s sixty-day filing period is a “jurisdictional requirement,” and equitable considerations are unavailing); see also Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 29 F.3d 513 , 516 (9th Cir.1994) (“The policy requiring that appeals be timely taken is so strong that ministerial failures by a clerk cannot be allowed to overcome it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.