Lloyd Sheppard v. Dean Mannor, No. 14-7571 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7571 LLOYD WAYNE SHEPPARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DEAN MANNOR, Commonwealth’s Attorney,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.