Case Name: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-16
Citations: 103 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 03-7891
Parties: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
No. 03-7891.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2004.
Decided July 16, 2004.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Julian Edward Rochester, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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 (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. 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