Lloyd Sheppard v. Dean Mannor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999667754]. Mailed to: Dean Mannor. [14-7571]

Appeal: 14-7571

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7571

LLOYD WAYNE SHEPPARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
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)

Submitted:

September 24, 2015

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7571

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lloyd

Wayne

Sheppard

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
find

no

reversible

We have reviewed the record and

error.

Accordingly,

we

grant

leave

to

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
on

either:

(1) a

new

rule

of

constitutional

law,

previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral

review;

or

previously

discoverable

(2)

newly

by

due

discovered
diligence,

evidence,
that

not

would

be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,
but

for

constitutional

error,

no

reasonable

factfinder

have found the petitioner guilty of the offense.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2012).
these

criteria.

would

28 U.S.C.

Sheppard’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

we

successive § 2254 petition.

2

deny

authorization

to

file

a

Appeal: 14-7571

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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.

AFFIRMED

3