US v. Julien Dilk, No. 11-6050 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JULIEN K. DILKS, Modica, MPP, a/k/a Julien Modica, MPH, a/k/a Julian 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-jctmfu) 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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Assistant United Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. also seeks pre-filing to appeal injunction the district against court s him. We order affirm Dilks imposing in part a 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. on January 10, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed 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 injunction, Dilks timely appealed that order. confine our review to the issues brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). raised in a pre-filing On appeal, we the Appellant s Because Dilks informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court s imposition of the review pre-filing of dispense the with injunction, court s oral Dilks order. argument has forfeited Accordingly, because the appellate we affirm. facts and We 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.