Case Name: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. George W. BUSH; United States Government, Respondents- Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-27
Citations: 323 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 08-8016
Parties: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner — Appellant, v. George W. BUSH; United States Government, Respondents— Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner — Appellant, v. George W. BUSH; United States Government, Respondents— Appellees.
No. 08-8016.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 27, 2009.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian Edward 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. 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 record and conclude that Rochester has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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.