Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Bernard TRUESDALE, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 415 F. App'x 468
Docket Number: Nos. 10-7329, 10-7479
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Bernard TRUESDALE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Bernard TRUESDALE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 10-7329, 10-7479.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
Decided: March 8, 2011.
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 Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Bernard Truesdale appeals from the district court's orders (1) denying his motions for leave to file a response to counsel's statement of his noneligibility for a sentence reduction, for a copy of his presentence report, to appoint new counsel based on a conflict of interest, and for judicial notice, and (2) granting his attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Truesdale's motion for appointment of counsel, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Truesdale, No. 3:92-cr00034-MR-1, 2010 WL 3522266 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2010) & (Sept. 27, 2010). 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.
AFFIRMED.