United States v. Rochester , 251 F. App'x 257 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6994
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,
Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00424)
Submitted: September 28, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the order of the
magistrate judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. 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
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rochester has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability, deny the motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the 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
- 2 -