Mohammed Jilani v. State of North Carolina, No. 16-6237 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6237 MOHAMMED NASSER JILANI, Petitioner – Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DONNIE HARRISON, County Detention Public Safety Center, Warden Wake 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 2 bail and for appointment of 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. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
