UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALVIN B. 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; 3:11-cv-00634-RLV)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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 Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(West

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell,

(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,

.

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

2 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

3