US v. Alvin Truesdale, No. 15-6821 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6821 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIN BERNARD TRUESDALE, Defendant -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; 3:14-cv-00263-RLV) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alvin Bernard Truesdale seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. orders are issues not a appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a unless of circuit justice appealability. or 28 judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” a The showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling 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 Truesdale’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. 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.
