United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Lawrence Nance, Pro Se Defendant.
P. Jones United States District Judge.
Jimmy Lawrence Nance filed a pro se motion titled,
“Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, ”
ECF No. 307, after I had construed and dismissed without
prejudice his “Motion to Reopen 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Proceedings and for an Order of Discovery, ” ECF No.
293, as a successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because the
Motion for Reconsideration sought a remedy for the dismissed
§ 2255 Motion and directly attacked the conviction, I
ordered Nance to file an amended motion that abandoned either
the claims about any prior § 2255 proceeding or the
claims attacking the conviction and sentence. See,
e.g., United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400
(4th Cir. 2015).
response, Nance filed “Petitioner's Motion for
Leave to Amend His Pending Motion for Reconsideration to Add
New Authority, ” ECF No. 309, and “Request for
Judicial Notice and Motion for Clarification, ” ECF No.
310. Because these motions reiterate Nance's intent to
continue attacking the validity of the conviction and
sentence, I construe all three motions as successive §
2255 motions. See United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 203, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting a court may
classify a pro se pleading per its contents regardless of its
caption and allegations of constitutional error in the
underlying criminal judgment will virtually always implicate
the rules governing successive collateral attacks).
argues that McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 396
(2013), allows him to present his claims of actual innocence
to this court without first receiving authorization from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. McQuiggin does not
apply here because “[a]lthough McQuiggin was
decided in the context of collateral review, the Supreme
Court indicated that its holding was limited to initial
habeas petitions and was not applicable to second or
successive petitions.” In re Bolin, 811 F.3d
403, 411 (11th Cir. 2016).
also cannot escape the rule for second or successive §
2255 motions by alleging “newly-discovered”
evidence because the evidence is not new. Nance's claim
about allegedly withheld forensic evidence is essentially the
same claim he presented in September 2012. See ECF No. 241.
The court dismissed that claim without prejudice as
successive in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), Op.,
Order, ECF Nos. 244, 245, and the court of appeals denied a
certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.
United States v. Nance, 507 F. App'x 318, 319
(4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished). Nance fails to establish that
the present claims are substantially different from the prior
collateral attack dismissed by this court and the court of
appeals or that he has received authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
the three motions, ECF Nos. 307, 309, 310, will be CONSTRUED
and DISMISSED without prejudice as successive Motions to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
 Nance was convicted of first-degree
murder of a United States Postal employee and sentenced to
life imprisonment, and the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Nance,
1995 WL 541695, at *5 (4th Cir. Sept. 13, 1995)
(unpublished), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1136
 Nance has repeatedly and
unsuccessfully sought relief from the court of appeals.
See, e.g., In Re Nance, 618 F. App'x
186, 186 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (declining to
entertain original habeas petition or transfer it to the
district court); United States v. Nance, 590 F.
App'x 282, 283 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (dismissing
Nance's appeal of the district court's dismissal of a
successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion); United
States v. Nance, 471 F. App'x 111, 112 (4th Cir.
2012) (unpublished) (same, and also denying authorization to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion); In Re
Nance, No. 12-262, order at 1 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012)
(unpublished) (denying authorization to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion); In Re Nance, No.
05-593, order at 1 (4th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006) (unpublished)
(same); In Re Nance, No. 02-298, order at 1 (4th
Cir. Jan. 7, 2003) (unpublished) (same); In Re
Nance, No. 01-859, order at 1 (4th Cir. July 26, 2001)
(unpublished) (same); In Re Nance, No. 00-737, order
at 1 (4th Cir. Sept. 7, 2000) (unpublished) (same); In Re
Nance, No. 98-642, order at 1 (4th Cir. Oct. 26, 1998)
(unpublished) (same); In Re Nance, No. 97-685, order
at 1 (4th Cir. Aug. 27, 1997) (unpublished) (same);
United States v. Nance, No. 99-6265, 1999 WL 352971,
at *1 (4th Cir. June 2, 1999) (unpublished) (affirming
district court's denial of Nance's “Request for
Reconsideration, or Alternatively, Motion to Reopen Section
2255”); see also Nance v. Atkinson, 589 F.
App'x 94, 95 (4th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (affirming the
district court's dismissal pursuant to In re
Jones of a § 2241 habeas petition seeking to