
    Younis EL SAYEDRI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; C. Alexandria Bogle, Office of the united state attorney; Michael J. Frank, Office of the united state attorney; Julia K. Martinez, Office of the united state attorney; Richard Cropp, Assistant Field Office Director for ICA-Farmville, Enforcement & Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Thomas Homan, Assistant Field Office Director for ICA-Farmville, Enforcement & Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; M. Yvonne Evans, Washington, D.C. Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Sarah Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 17-6607
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 28, 2017
    Decided: October 2, 2017
    Younis El Sayedri, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Ayana Niambi Free, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Younis El Sayedri appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Insofar as El Sayedri challenged his convictions, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. El Sayedri v. Sessions, No. 1:16-cv-01412-AJT-IDD, 2017 WL 1551722 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2017). We dismiss the appeal from that part of the court’s order concerning El Sayedri’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (2012) (stating that exclusive means to challenge final order of removal is petition for review). Finally, we grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss as moot that part of the appeal challenging El Sayedri’s continued 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART  