United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5134 September Term, 2024 1:09-cv-01733-TJK Filed On: February 14, 2025 Vincent Roggio, Appellant v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as Receiver for and on behalf of Washington Mutual Bank, a failed banking institution, and in its corporate capacity, Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson, Millett, and Rao, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s minute order dated April 10, 2024, be affirmed. Appellant has forfeited any challenge to this order by not addressing it in his brief. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To the extent appellant seeks review of the district court’s orders entered on October 25, 2020, or November 1, 2023, this court lacks jurisdiction because the notice of appeal is not timely as to those orders. The notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after the orders issued and appellant’s post-judgment motion filed on December 29, 2023 did not toll the time to appeal the October 25, 2020 or November 1, 2023 orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5134 September Term, 2024 of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2