Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Larry G. HARVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON; Henry McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-6919.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 9, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 10, 2004.
    Larry G. Harvin, Appellant pro se.
    Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   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 ap-pealability. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Har-vin 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identical to the one denied by the district court, See Har-vin v. Rushton, No. 04-6303 (4th Cir. June 3, 2004) (unpublished), and that determination is now the law of the case.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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED