United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Filed April 2, 1999
No. 98-5522
Neil Paris Sugarman,
Appellant
v.
Percy Pitzer, Warden, USP Beaumont, et al.,
Appellees
(District Court No. 98cv02147)
Neil Paris Sugarman, pro se.
Before: Wald, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed Per Curiam.
Per Curiam: Appellant, a federal prisoner, filed a habeas
petition pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s 2241. The
district court dismissed the petition, and this court must now
determine whether appeals challenging the dismissal of a
habeas petition brought by a federal prisoner pursuant to
s 2241 are included within the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) certificate of appealability
(COA) requirement. We hold that a COA is not required for
federal prisoner s 2241 appeals.
Under the AEDPA, a COA is necessary in order to appeal
"[t]he final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a
State court; or ... the final order in a proceeding under
section 2255." See 28 U.S.C. s 2253(c)(1). Section 2253 does
not refer to s 2241 claims by federal prisoners.
The circuits that have addressed the issue have held that
s 2253's COA requirement does not apply to s 2241 claims
brought by federal prisoners. See McIntosh v. U.S. Parole
Commission, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997) (no COA
required for federal prisoner to appeal the denial of s 2241
petition); Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878,
879 (9th Cir. 1997) (same); Ojo v. Immigration and Natural-
ization Service, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1997) (same).
See also Ferrante v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 990 F. Supp.
367, 375 n.2 (D. N.J. 1998). In light of the plain language of
the AEDPA, which omits federal s 2241 petitions from the
list of those requiring COAs, we now join in the conclusion
that federal s 2241 petitions are excluded from the COA
requirement.
The remaining issues pertaining to this appeal are resolved
through an unpublished order issued simultaneously with this
opinion.