UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6366

JOHN G. WESTINE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FMC BUTNER, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02014-FL)

Submitted: January 31, 2022 Decided: March 15, 2022

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John G. Westine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: John G. Westine, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying, inter alia, his motions for compassionate release or home confinement and his request to file an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Westine’s informal brief challenges only the district court’s denial of his request to file an amended § 2241 petition, he has forfeited appellate review of the majority of the district court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). To the extent Westine seeks to reassert his challenges to his convictions and sentence, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s determination that Westine’s claims fail to satisfy the Wheeler and Jones tests for determining whether a federal prisoner may seek habeas relief under § 2241, and its consequent denial of his request to file an amended petition. See United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018) (establishing test for challenging sentence); In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (establishing test for challenging convictions).

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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED