Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lloyd Sheppard v. Dean Mannor, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    Lloyd Wayne Sheppard appealed the district court's dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit construed Sheppard's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second § 2254 petition but denied authorization because Sheppard's claims did not satisfy the criteria for filing a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-09-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7571

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lloyd Wayne Sheppard appealed the district court's dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit construed Sheppard's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second § 2254 petition but denied authorization because Sheppard's claims did not satisfy the criteria for filing a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views3 pages

    Lloyd Sheppard v. Dean Mannor, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lloyd Wayne Sheppard appealed the district court's dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit construed Sheppard's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second § 2254 petition but denied authorization because Sheppard's claims did not satisfy the criteria for filing a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-7571

    LLOYD WAYNE SHEPPARD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DEAN MANNOR, Commonwealths 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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lloyd

    Wayne

    Sheppard

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    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 Sheppards 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.

    Sheppards claims do not satisfy either of

    Therefore,

    we

    successive 2254 petition.

    deny

    authorization

    to

    file

    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

    You might also like