Owerrie Davon Bacon, Jr., appeals the district courts orders denying without prejudice Bacons motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and denying reconsideration.
*
The district court denied Bacons compassionate release motion after concluding that Bacon had not demonstrated that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and that, even assuming he had done so, the motion lacked merit. The district court denied Bacons motion for reconsideration on the same grounds.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bacons informal brief challenges only the district courts exhaustion ruling and does not challenge the district courts ruling that his request for compassionate release lacked merit, he has forfeited appellate review of the courts orders. 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district courts orders. 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. We conclude that the district courts denial without prejudice of Bacons compassionate release motion does not deprive us of jurisdiction. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610-12 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1376, 209 L.Ed.2d 122 (2021).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.