UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JULIEN K. DILKS, a/k/a Julien Modica, MPH, a/k/a Julian
Modica, MPP,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:93-cr-00091-jct-mfu-1; 7:10-cv-80286-jct-
mfu)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Julien K. Dilks, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julien K. Dilks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
motion, construing the motion as a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis, and dismissing it as an abuse of the writ. Dilks
also seeks to appeal the district court’s order imposing a
pre-filing injunction against him. We affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the
district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil
case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551
U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s dismissal order was entered on
the docket on October 27, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed
on January 10, 2011. Because Dilks failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss this portion the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
2
Turning to the court’s order imposing a pre-filing
injunction, Dilks timely appealed that order. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dilks’ informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s imposition
of the pre-filing injunction, Dilks has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3