Rochester v. Bodiso ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6185
    JULIAN E. ROCHESTER, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (2:09-cv-00217-HMH-RSC)
    Submitted:   April 24, 2009                 Decided:   March 18, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Julian E. Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Julian       E.   Rochester          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) (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).          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.                  See 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 compel and for copies of documents 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: 096185

Filed Date: 3/18/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021