United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
before the Court is Petitioner Jason Sheppard's fifth
Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF 209]. Petitioner claims as
[D]ue to newly discovered evidence and admissions in Court by
[Attorney Gary] Gerson himself on January 12,
2017, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit has granted Sheppard leave to file a second
or successive § 2255 petition and as such, should the
honorable District Court also believe Sheppard's
appellate waiver was unknowing and involuntary or chooses to
adapt to the Pennsylvania Bar Association, PBA Committee
Opinion 2014-100 “Conflicts of Interest and Other
Misconduct Related to Waivers of Claims for Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel” which deems waivers of
ineffective assistance of counsel as “unethical,
” and should AUSA Conway decline to enforce said waiver
as Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole's memorandum
instructed all AUSA's to do since October 14, 2014,
Sheppard's 2255 claim can be heard for the VERY FIRST
TIME, and can be decided ONCE AND FOR ALL.
ECF 209, pp. 2-3 (capitalization in original); see also
id. at p. 3 (“This Court now has jurisdiction to
hear this ‘second or successive § 2255
petition' as the U.S. Court of Appeals has granted
Sheppard leave to file such. A copy of the order is attached
motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
is the means to collaterally challenge a federal conviction
or sentence.” Massey v. United States, 581
F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009). Section 2255 provides that
petitioners, such as Mr. Sheppard, who have already filed a
2255-motion, may file a “second or successive
motion” provided that “a panel of the appropriate
court of appeals” has certified that the motion
contains “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and
viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty
of the offense” or “a new rule of constitutional
law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h).
instant 2255-Motion is a “second or successive
motion” because it was filed after this Court's
decision denying Petitioner's first 2255-Motion on its
merits became final. To date, the Court has not received
notice from the appellate court that Petitioner has been
granted permission to file a second or successive
2255-motion, and, contrary to Petitioner's
representation, no such ruling is attached to his Motion.
Therefore, the Court independently reviewed the dockets in
Petitioner's numerous cases before the appellate court
related to USA v. Jason Sheppard, CR10-119 (W.D.
Pa.) and USA v. Jason Sheppard, CR13-278 (W.D. Pa.)
to determine whether, as represented by Petitioner, the
appellate court has granted him leave to file a second or
the dockets reflect such a ruling. The Court's best guess
as to what has led Petitioner astray is the docket in USA
v. Jason Sheppard, C.A. No. 17-1345 (3rd
Cir.). There, on March 2, 2017, the Circuit Court entered on
its docket that Petitioner's
“Application” for second-or-successive
authorization, which previously was deficient, had been
brought into compliance and “deemed filed with the
[Circuit] Court.” This entry does not reflect
that second-or-successive authorization has been provided; it
merely indicates that the application has been filed.
the circumstances, the appellate court has not certified
Petitioner's second or successive 2255-Motion, and this
Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over it and may not review
it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly,
Petitioner's § 2255 Motion ([ECF 209]) is DISMISSED.
In light of this ruling, the Civil Action affiliated with the
2255-Motion, No. 17-331, will be dismissed and marked closed.
Finally, because jurists of reason would not debate this
procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability will not
is advised that he has the right to appeal this Order
dismissing his 2255-Motion for lack of jurisdiction,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and that the
Court's denial of a certificate of appealability does not
prevent him from doing so, as long as he also seeks a
certificate of appealability from the court of appeals.
See Fed. R. App. P. 2.
 Specifically the Court reviewed the
following elven appellate court dockets: (1) USA v. Jason
Sheppard, C.A. No. 12-2795 (3d Cir.); (2) USA v.
Jason Sheppard, C.A. No. 14-1829 (3d Cir.); (3) USA
v. Jason Sheppard¸ C.A. No. 15-2670 (3d Cir.); (4)
USA v. Jason Sheppard¸ C.A. No. 15-3088 (3d
Cir.); (5) USA v. Jason Sheppard¸ C.A. No.
15-3306 (3d Cir.); (6) USA v. Jason Sheppard¸
C.A. No. 15-3709 (3d Cir.); (7) USA v. Jason
Sheppard¸ C.A. No, 15-3990 (3d Cir.); (8) USA
v. Jason Sheppard¸ C.A. No. 16-1063 (3d Cir.); (9)
USA v. Jason Sheppard, C.A. No. 16-1254 (3d Cir.);
(10) USA v. Jason Sheppard, C.A. No. 16-4434 (3d
Cir.); and (11) USA v. Jason Sheppard, C.A. No.
17-1345 (3d Cir.).
 In an Order dated March 14, 2017 ([ECF
205]), Petitioner was instructed to file in Criminal Action
No. 10-119 a “Notice of Change of Address, ” and
the Court cautioned: “[f]rom this point on, . . . the
Court always (and only) will send copies of its filings to
Defendant's address-of-record.” Id. at 3.
As to the current status of Petitioner's record-address,
the Court can only say that a notice of change of address has
not yet been received and processed by the Clerk's Office
and entered into the docket. Given that Petitioner's
recent submissions all have come with the same
return-address, the Court will “cut to the chase”
and instruct the Clerk's Office to change his
address-of-record to the address identified in his recent
submissions. To be clear, however, it remains the
responsibility of Petitioner, not the Court, to
ensure that his address-of-record remains current.
See Order dated Dec. 1, 2015, [ECF 77] in Criminal
Action No. 13-278 at n.1 (“[i]t is ...