22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T473,The district court denied petitioner Stephen Charles Forde’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Forde filed a notice of appeal which the district court construed as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA). The district court denied the request for a COA and referred the request to this court. We must decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), requires that Forde receive a COA before we may hear his appeal. The new section 2253(c)(1) provides the following: 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1). The plain language of section 2253(c)(1) does not require a COA here because this is an appeal from an order denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the COA request is denied as unnecessary. The briefing schedule established previously shall remain in effect.24:T48e,

The district court denied petitioner Stephen Charles Forde’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Forde filed a notice of appeal which the district court construed as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA). The district court denied the request for a COA and referred the request to this court.

We must decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), requires that Forde receive a COA before we may hear his appeal. The new section 2253(c)(1) provides the following:

28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1).

The plain language of section 2253(c)(1) does not require a COA here because this is an appeal from an order denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the COA request is denied as unnecessary.

The briefing schedule established previously shall remain in effect.