Court Opinion

ID: 8672910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:38:12.839491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:22.324681
License: Public Domain

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 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.