Case Name: James L. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee, and Anthony Sangiacomo, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Defendant, Joseph Giacobbe, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-30
Citations: 472 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 11-7523
Parties: James L. MILLER, Petitioner— Appellant, v. AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD, Respondent — Appellee, and Anthony Sangiacomo, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Defendant, Joseph Giacobbe, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
James L. MILLER, Petitioner— Appellant, v. AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD, Respondent — Appellee, and Anthony Sangiacomo, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Defendant, Joseph Giacobbe, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Respondent.
No. 11-7523.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2012.
Decided: April 30, 2012.
James L. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James L. Miller appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the court's rejection of Miller's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Because Miller fails to challenge in his informal brief the court's disposition of his remaining claims, he has forfeited appellate review of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (confining review to issues raised in appellant's brief). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. Air Force Clemency & Parole Bd., No. 1:10-cv-02621-JFM, 2011 WL 4402497 (D.Md. Sept. 20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.