In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his convictions for conduct of or participation in an enterprise through racketeering, conducting or attempting to conduct unlawful financial activity and use or investment of proceeds from a pattern of racketeering activity. He raises six issues. We affirm without discussion as to all except one. The remaining issue asserts that the trial court erred in imposing restitution after appellant had filed his notice of appeal. As to that issue, we lack jurisdiction because appellant failed to file a separate notice of appeal challenging the restitution order. Armstrong v. State, 29 So.3d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Because we lack jurisdiction as to that issue, we are constrained to dismiss that portion of the appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.