Kevin Harbin v. Warden Broad River

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint counsel [998678038-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998678038-3] Originating case number: 6:09-cv-02790-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court. [998693032]. Mailed to: Kevin Harbin. [11-6483]

Appeal: 11-6483

Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6483

KEVIN L. HARBIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:09-cv-02790-JMC)

Submitted:

September 29, 2011

Decided:

October 4, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin L. Harbin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6483

Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin L. Harbin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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 Harbin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
deny

Harbin’s

motions

for

transcripts

at

We

the

Government’s

expense and for appointment of appellate counsel.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 11-6483

Document: 8

adequately

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

presented

in

the

Page: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3