Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chapelle Alphonso BOULDIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-01
Citations: 710 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 17-6983
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chapelle Alphonso BOULDIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chapelle Alphonso BOULDIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6983
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2018
Decided: February 1, 2018
Chapelle Alphonso Bouldin, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chapelle Alphonso Bouldin appeals the district court's July 11, 2017, order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bouldin's informal brief does not challenge the district court's conclusion that his motion was an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion, Bouldin has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
To the extent that Bouldin's notice of appeal might support review of the district court's underlying opinion and order denying his § 2255 motion, his appeal from the opinion and order is untimely. The district court entered its opinion and order denying Bouldin's § 2255 motion on October 20, 2016. Because the district court's opinion and order was unaccompanied by a separate document, judgment is considered entered on March 20, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii), 26(a)(1)(C). Bouldin then had 60 days, or until May 19, 2017, to file his notice of appeal from the opinion and order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), Bouldin did not file his notice of appeal from the district court's order dismissing his most recent Rule 60(b) motion until July 25, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Furthermore, we note that Bouldin's Rule 60(b) motions did not toll the appeal period because they were filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's opinion and order denying Bouldin's § 2255 motion. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).