Julian E. Rochester, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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. § 2254 (2006) petitions. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 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 (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 records and
conclude that Rochester has not made the requisite 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 court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. We deny the motions to transfer and to expedite
consideration of the appeals.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --