US v. Alvin Truesdale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [998962814-2], denying Motion for other relief [998933384-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998900511-2] Originating case number: 3:92-cr-00034-RLV-1,3:11-cv-00634-RLV Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999028837]. Mailed to: Alvin Truesdale. [12-7143]

Appeal: 12-7143

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIN B. TRUESDALE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:92-cr-00034-RLV-1; 3:11-cv-00634-RLV)

Submitted:

January 22, 2013

Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Appellant Pro Se.
Frank D. Whitney,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth
Ray,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Asheville,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7143

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alvin Truesdale seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2012)

motion.

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Truesdale has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally,

we

deny

Truesdale’s

motions

to

reverse

his

convictions, for transcripts at government expense, and to treat
his § 2255 motion as a motion to recall the mandate or a motion
2

Appeal: 12-7143

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/24/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

to alter or amend the judgment.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3