UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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     of     appealability.            See     28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).          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) (2006).                 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, 

,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El    v.   Cockrell,     

,    336-38

(2003).        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.                         

.

               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.                           We

deny     Harbin’s    motions     for    transcripts        at    the     Government’s

expense and for appointment of appellate counsel.                        We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                                            2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   the   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                    3