UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6237
MOHAMMED NASSER JILANI,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DONNIE HARRISON, Warden Wake
County Detention Public Safety Center,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02094-D)
Submitted: June 7, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mohammed Nasser Jilani, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammed Nasser Jilani, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Jilani has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny the motions for bail and for appointment of
counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3