Julian Rochester v. South Carolina Department of C, No. 08-8229 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8229 JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge (2:08-cv-03140-HMH-RSC) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable (2006) a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). have independently reviewed the record and Rochester has not made the requisite showing. conclude We that Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.