Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06821/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvin Bernard Truesdale
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6821 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). 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 

Appeal: 15-6821 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6821 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3