Elíseo Garcia, federal prisoner federal prisoner# 57842-180, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions for relief for judgment and from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district court denied Garcia IFP status on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith under § 1915(a)(3).

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Garcia is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Garcia’s July 12, 2010, notice of appeal from the district court’s June 30, 2009, dismissal of his suit for lack of jurisdiction, is untimely. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Further, Garcia has not adequately briefed and has thus abandoned any challenge to the district court’s denial of IFP as to his Rule 60(b) motions. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Garcia has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Garcia’s motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24. Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard,, 707 F.2d at 219-20, the appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Garcia’s claims against the defendants in Garcia v. *440 Henderson, No. A-09-CA-377, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Garcia is warned that, if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.