Lloyd Sheppard v. Dean Mannor
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999471760-2]. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00547-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Dean Mannor. [14-7571]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LLOYD WAYNE SHEPPARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
DEAN MANNOR, Commonwealth’s Attorney,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00547-GEC-RSB)
September 24, 2015
September 29, 2015
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd Wayne Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
We have reviewed the record and
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court.
Sheppard v. Mannor, No. 7:14-cv-00547-GEC-
RSB (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2014).
Additionally, we construe Sheppard’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2254 petition.
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003).
In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,
have found the petitioner guilty of the offense.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2012).
Sheppard’s claims do not satisfy either of
successive § 2254 petition.
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?