Court Opinion

ID: 1024096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:27:59.414731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:57.054584
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6994

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.    Wallace W. Dixon,
Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00424)

Submitted:   September 28, 2007           Decided:   October 23, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 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, 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

                                     - 2 -