Lloyd Wayne Sheppard v. DEAN MANNOR, Commonwealth’s Attorney

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible 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 (2) newly discovered evidence, not
previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,
but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would
have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2012). Sheppard’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition.

-- 2 of 3 --

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 of 3 --