Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0417-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julian E. ROCHESTER, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner—Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee. Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner—Appellant, v. McKither Bodison, Respondent—Appellee.
    Nos. 09-6495, 09-6785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 16, 2009.
    Decided: Jan. 6, 2010.
    
      Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated matters, Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitions. The orders are 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Rochester has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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. We deny the motions to transfer and to expedite consideration of the appeals.

DISMISSED.