UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6919
LARRY G. HARVIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE L. RUSHTON; HENRY MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-688)
Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry G. Harvin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry G. Harvin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability in his
action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Harvin has not made the
requisite showing. We have previously rejected a motion for a
certificate of appealability identical to the one denied by the
district court, see Harvin v. Rushton, No. 04-6303 (4th Cir. June
3, 2004) (unpublished), and that determination is now the law of
the case. See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th
Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine). Accordingly, we deny Harvin’s
motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -