Rochester v. South Carolina , 260 F. App'x 544 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6914
    JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:07-cv-00397-NCT)
    Submitted:   December 12, 2007         Decided:     December 28, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    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 and dismiss the appeal. The motions to proceed in
    forma pauperis and to compel rulings are denied.            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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6914

Citation Numbers: 260 F. App'x 544

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, King

Filed Date: 12/28/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024