IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20793

Summary Calendar

STEVE O’NEAL GREEN,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

RICKTHALER,DIRECTOR,TEXASDEPARTMENT OF CRIMINALJUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-2557

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steve O’Neal Green, Texas prisoner # 1436873, was convicted in Texas

state court of injuring a child. He has filed a motion for a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application

that he filed challenging his conviction and revocation sentence, the denial of a

motion for the appointment of counsel that he filed after his § 2254 application

had been dismissed, and the dismissal of several post-judgment motions treated

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-20793 Document: 00512007564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2012
No. 11-20793

as filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). With his motion for

a COA, Green has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support

of his request for a COA and an incorporated request for authorization from this

court to file a successive § 2254 application, a nunc pro tunc motion for evidence

favorable to the defendant, a motion for the appointment of an expert, a motion

for an evidentiary hearing, and a motion for the appointment of counsel. These

additional motions are denied.

To obtain a COA, Green must make “a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003). When, as in this case, a district court has denied federal habeas

relief on procedural grounds, the applicant must demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find it debatable whether the § 2254 application states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the district court was

correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). 

An applicant satisfies the COA standard “by demonstrating that jurists of reason

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327.

Green has not shown that his claims challenging the district court’s final

judgment dismissing his § 2254 application deserve encouragement to proceed

further. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. His motion for a COA to appeal the

decision is denied.

Green does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his two

post-judgment motions for favorable evidence and three post-judgment motions

for leave to file a memorandum as unauthorized successive § 2254 applications. 

Accordingly, he has abandoned any request for a COA to appeal those decisions. 

See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).

Green is not required to obtain a COA to appeal the district court’s order

denying his post-judgment motion for the appointment of counsel. See Harbison

2

Case: 11-20793 Document: 00512007564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2012
No. 11-20793

v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). However, he has not shown that the district

court abused its discretion in denying his request. Cf. United States v. Nichols,

30 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s denial of that motion is

affirmed. Green’s motion for a COA to appeal the decision is denied.

APPEAL AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

3

Case: 11-20793 Document: 00512007564 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2012