Jeremy Alexander Doe appeals the district courts order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Does informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district courts disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the courts 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district courts 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. To the extent Doe seeks to appeal the district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his appeal is untimely. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). To the extent Doe seeks to appeal his criminal judgment, his notice of appeal is duplicative of a prior appeal of the same judgment. United States v. Doe, 328 F. Appx 850 (4th Cir. 2009). PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.