US v. Alvin Truesdale, No. 15-6980 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIN B. TRUESDALE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-6154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIN B. TRUESDALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals 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) Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Alvin Truesdale appeals from the district court’s orders granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, denying his motion for reconsideration of that order and of the order denying an earlier § 3582(c)(2) motion, and denying his motions for a hearing. and find no reversible error. * We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Truesdale, No. 3:92-cr-00034-RLV-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2016 & Jul. 29, 2016). We deny Truesdale’s motions for appointment of counsel and for release on bail pending resolution of these appeal. We further deny as moot his motion to include the district court’s amended judgment in the record on appeal. 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. AFFIRMED * To the extent that Truesdale sought reconsideration of the orders addressing his § 3582(c)(2) motions, we note that a district court has no authority to reconsider its decision on a sentence reduction motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010). 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.
