USCA4 Appeal: 22-6198 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6198

RONALD R. MYLES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN R. M. WOLFE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00061-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: November 30, 2022 Decided: December 14, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald R. Myles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6198 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald R. Myles, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his

petition and denying a certificate of appealability. On

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir.

R. 34(b). Because Myles’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s

dismissal of his § 2241 petition, he has forfeited appellative review of the court’s order.

See Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved

in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Myles’ § 2241

petition. Further, because a certificate of appealability is not necessary when a federal

prisoner seeks to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition, we dismiss as moot the portion of

Myles’ appeal that challenges the district court’s order denying a certificate of

appealability. See

(c)(1)(A) (providing that certificate of appealability is

required in appeal from final order in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a state, not

federal, detention). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

2