William Driver appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the doctrine of Younger 1 abstention. The district court did not rule on the issue of whether a certifícate of appealability (COA) should be granted, and Driver did not expressly request a COA in the district court or on appeal.

A COA is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A). Although Driver has been released on bond, he remains “in custody for purposes of § 2241. See Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 300-01, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984). While a prisoner in federal custody need not obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition, a prisoner in state custody, such as Driver, must do so. See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[Section] 2253 clearly does not encompass challenges to federal detention under § 2241. Just as clearly, however, § 2253 does encompass challenges to state detention under § 2241[.]”).

Even if we construe Driver’s notice of appeal as a request for a certifícate of appealability in our court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(2), we normally would remand such requests to the district court in the first instance. See United States v. Ubani, 582 Fed.Appx. 333, 333 (5th Cir. 2014). We decline to do so here, however, because we conclude any such remand would be futile. Driver fails to meet the standards for a COA as reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s disposition of his case. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Accordingly, we decline to remand this case, and we refuse to issue a COA ourselves.

APPEAL DISMISSED.