Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06185/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6185 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 09-6185 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pg: 2 of 2