Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06914/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06914-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Edward Rochester
Appellant
State of South Carolina
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6914 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

Appeal: 07-6914 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 2