### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20793 Summary Calendar

STEVE O’NEAL GREEN, Petitioner–Appellant,

v. RI C K THAL E R , D I R E C T O R , T E X AS D E PARTM E NT O F C RIM I N AL JU S TI C E , 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 p risoner # 1436873, was convicted in Texas state court of i nj u ri n g a child. He has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a p p l i c a t ion 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 3, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20793 Document: 00512007564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2012No. 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 applic a t i o n 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 st an d ar d “b y de m o n s tr ating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists c o u l d 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

. a t 3 27. His motion for a COA to appeal the decision is denied. Green does n o t c h allenge 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. 199 9). 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: 10/03/2012No. 11-20793

v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). However, he has not s h o w n t h a t 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 m o t ion 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