Julian Rochester v. McKither Bodison, No. 09-6495 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6495 JULIAN E. ROCHESTER, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. No. 09-6785 JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-00539-HMH-RSC; 2:09-cv-00940-HMH-RSC) Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated matters, Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable unless certificate (2006). § 2254 of (2006) a petitions. circuit The justice appealability. or 28 See orders judge U.S.C. are not issues a § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude We that have independently Rochester has not reviewed made the the records requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the process. court We and deny argument the motions would to not aid transfer the and decisional to expedite consideration of the appeals. DISMISSED 3

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.