Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-23
Citations: 251 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 07-6994
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6994.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2007.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the order of the magistrate judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able 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, 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 a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, 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.